714 So. 2d 143 - State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2012
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Smith v. Maryland · Oliver v. United States · Hester v. United States · United States v. Dunn
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 5. Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy. No warrant shall issue without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or things to be seized, and the lawful purpose or reason for the search. Any person adversely affected by a search or seizure conducted in violation of this Section shall have standing to raise its illegality in the appropriate court. This court in State v. Taylor, 30,531 (La.App.2d Cir.5/13/98), 714 So.2d 143 , held that both the federal and state constitutional provisions protect only reasonable expectations of privacy. We stated: If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter sought to be protected, then the constitutional provisions are not applicable. Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metro. Council, 96-1979 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 562 ; Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). In other words, compliance with the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 5, i.e. warrant or exceptions thereto, becomes immaterial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The test for determining whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy which is constitutionally protected "is not only whether the person had an actual or subjective expectation of privacy, but also whether that expectation is of a type which society at large is prepared to recognize as being reasonable." Capital City Press, supra, quoting State v. Harper, 27,278 (La.App.2d Cir.8/23/95), 660 So.2d 537 , writ denied, 95-2318 (La.1/12/96), 666 So.2d 320 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.