State v. Guidry

862 So. 2d 965, 2003 La. LEXIS 3346, 2003 WL 22739623
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided November 21, 2003·No. No. 2003-KK-1944·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration and written treatment in light of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). See United States v. Richardson, 943 F.2d 547, 550 (5th Cir.1991); United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Rome, 809 F.2d 665, 669-70 (10th Cir.1987). See also State v. Matthieu, 506 So.2d 1209, 1212 (La.1987) (“‘La.C.Cr.P. Art. 703 permits suppression only of evi[966]*966dence obtained “by an unconstitutional search or seizure.” It was not intended to permit suppression of evidence seized by a warrant ‘illegal’ merely because technically contrary to law, unless the seizure is viola-tive of fundamental due process concepts.’ ’’(quoting State v. Bienvenu, 260 La. 1023, n. 1, 258 So.2d 72, 74 (1972)).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Guidry, 862 So. 2d 965, 2003 La. LEXIS 3346, 2003 WL 22739623 (La. 2003).

862 So. 2d 965 (State v. Guidry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Newsom
250 So. 3d 894 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State of Louisiana v. David Ray Newsom
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017
State v. Julien
229 So. 3d 640 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Young
140 So. 3d 136 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
State v. Guidry
866 So. 2d 944 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)