763 So. 2d 21 - State v. Dorsey’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Chimel v. California · Whren v. United States · Scott v. United States · 464 So. 2d 293 - State v. Raheem
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On trial of a motion to suppress, the State has the burden of proving the admissibility of all evidence seized without a warrant. La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); State v. Jones, 97-2217, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/24/99), 731 So.2d 389, 395 , writ denied, 99-1702 (La.11/5/99), 751 So.2d 234 . A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress the evidence is entitled to great weight, because the court has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony. State v. Mims, 98-2572, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/5/99), 752 So.2d 192 . "In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court is not limited to evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress; it may also consider any pertinent evidence given at trial of the case." State v. Nogess, 98-0670, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/3/99), 729 So.2d 132, 137 . A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Tomasetti, 381 So.2d 420, 423 (La.1980). One of those exceptions is a search of a person and the area within his immediate control incident to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Tomasetti, 381 So.2d at 423 . La.C.Cr.P. art. 201 defines arrest as "the taking of one person into custody by another [by] actual restraint of the person." The distinguishin”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court is not limited to evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress; it may also consider any pertinent evidence given at trial of the case.”
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.