State v. Raiford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The lawful seizure of abandoned property recovered during an investigatory stop or arrest depends upon the existence of either a reasonable suspicion or a reasonable cause. State v. Jones, 94-1261 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/17/95) , 657 So.2d 262 . When officers do not have the right to make an investigatory stop, property abandoned or otherwise disposed of as a result thereof cannot be legally seized. State v. Andrishok, 434 So.2d 389 (La.1983); State v. Raiford, 600 So.2d 924 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992). However, if property is abandoned without any prior unlawful intrusion into a citizen’s right to be free from governmental interference then such property may be lawfully seized. State v. Britton, 93-1990 (La.1/27/94), 633 So.2d 1208 ; State v. Wheeler, 416 So.2d 78 (La.1982); State v. Williams, 398 So.2d 1112 (La.1981); Raiford, 600 So.2d 924 . In such cases, there is no |9expectation of privacy, thus, no violation of a person’s custodial rights. Id., Andrishok, 434 So.2d 389 . Therefore, it is only where a citizen is actually stopped without reasonable cause or when the stop is imminent that the right to be left alone is violated thereby rendering unlawful any resultant seizure of abandoned property. [State v. JTucker, 626 So.2d 707 [(La.1993)]; State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 (La.1979); Raiford, 600 So.2d 924 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 741 So. 2d 791 - State v. Gauthier