Louisiana POST Court Cases

Carroll vs. US

Held that automobiles and other conveyances, being highly mobile, may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office, provided there is probable cause to believe they contain articles that the officers are entitled to seize, i.e, contraband.

Terry vs. OH

Held that a police officer, on less than probable cause for arrest, may pat down a suspicious person whom he has reason to believe presents a present danger to himself or others.

Spinelli vs. US

"Innocent-seeming activity and data" and a "bald and unilluminating assertion of suspicion in an affidavit are not to be given weight in magistrate's determination of probable cause. An officer may use credible hearsay to establish probable cause, but an affidavit based on an informant's tip must satisfy the two-pronged Aguilar test.

Aguilar vs. TX

Held that by obtaining a search warrant probable cause cannot be made out by affidavits which are merely conclusions, but must detail the underlying circumstances upon which the affidavits or an informer's belief is based.

Established two prong tests for determining probable cause on the basis of information obtained from an informant.

US vs. Wade

Held that a lineup or other face to face confrontation after the accused has been formally charged with an offense is considered a critical stage of proceedings; therefore, the accused has a right to have counsel present.

Santobello vs. NY

If the prosecution has promised a lenient sentence as a result of a plea deal, the prosecution must keep that promise.

Horton vs. CA

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view, even though the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent.

AZ vs. Gant

Police may only search the arrestee's vehicle subsequent to his arrest, when it is reasonable that the arrestee could access a weapon or destroy evidence of his arrest, contained within the vehicle.

Kirby vs. IL

The court held that _______ was not entitled to the presence and advice of a lawyer during a lineup or other face to face confrontation, because he had not been formally charged with an offense.

Miranda vs. AZ

Held that in the absence of an intelligent waiver, confessions and other statements obtained by interrogation in police custody was inadmissible in evidence, both in state and federal cases, where the suspect was not informed of his right to be silent, or of the possible use of his statements as evidence against him (interrogational rights).

Mapp vs. OH

Held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was inadmissible in State Criminal prosecutions by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Known as the Exclusionary Rule.