822 So. 2d 205 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court, in State v. Jones, XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/26/02), 822 So.2d 205 , discussed the plain view exception as follows: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment, (1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband. State v. Hernandez, 410 So.2d 1381, 1383 (La.1982); State v. Tate, 623 So.2d 908, 917 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 629 So.2d 1126 and 1140 (La.1993). In Tate , this court further noted: In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the Court held that evidence found in plain view need not have been found inadvertently in order to fall within this exception to the warrant requirement, although in most cases evidence seized pursuant to this exception will have been discovered inadvertently. Tate at 917 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 859 So. 2d 776 - State v. Davis