State v. Pham

48 Citing cases

  1. State v. Riles

    No. 2021-K-0738 (La. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2022)

    The district court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and its ultimate determination of Fourth Amendment reasonableness is reviewed de novo. State v. Polkey, 20-0482, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/25/20), 310 So.3d 605, 608 (citing State v. Pham, 01-2199, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218; U.S. v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, on mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions drawn from those facts de novo. Polkey, 20-0482, p. 4, 310 So.3d at 608 (citing Pham, 01-2199, p. 3, 839 So.2d at 218).

  2. State v. Riles

    336 So. 3d 970 (La. Ct. App. 2022)

    The district court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and its ultimate determination of Fourth Amendment reasonableness is reviewed de novo.State v. Polkey , 20-0482, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/25/20), 310 So.3d 605, 608 (citing State v. Pham, 01-2199, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218 ; U.S. v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993) ). Accordingly, on mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions drawn from those facts de novo . Polkey , 20-0482, p. 4, 310 So.3d at 608 (citing Pham, 01-2199, p. 3, 839 So.2d at 218 ).

  3. State v. Polkey

    310 So. 3d 605 (La. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    4 Cir. 9/22/99), 752 So.2d 911, 914. The district court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and its ultimate determination of Fourth Amendment reasonableness is reviewed denovo.State v. Pham, [20] 01-2199, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218 ; U.S. v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5 Cir.1993). Accordingly, "on mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo."Pham, [20]01-2199, p. 4, 839 So.2d at 218.

  4. State v. Rousset

    302 So. 3d 55 (La. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Applying the district court's supported findings of fact, we review the district judge's holdings on questions of law, including the reasonableness of government conduct under the Fourth Amendment, de novo. SeeId. , 08-2262 at p. 4, 45 So.3d at 580 ; State v. Pham, 01-2199, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218. Should we find no reversible legal error in the court's reasonableness determination, we then review the district judge's decision to grant a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, seeWells, 08-2262 at p. 5, 45 So.3d at 581, as the ruling as to whether the exclusionary rule is being properly applied under Fourth Amendment doctrine is a mixed question of law and fact.

  5. State v. Allen

    NO. 2013-KA-1149 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2014)

    Applying the district judge's supported findings of fact, we next review the district judge's holdings on questions of law, including the reasonableness of governmental conduct under the Fourth Amendment, de novo. See Id., 08-2262, p. 4, 45 So. 3d at 580; State v. Pham, 01-2199, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So. 2d 214, 218. If we find no reversible legal error in the determination of reasonableness, we then review the district judge's decision on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, see Wells, 08-2262, p. 5, 45 So. 3d at 581, as the ruling as to whether the exclusionary rule is being properly applied under Fourth Amendment doctrine is a mixed question of law and fact. See Pham, 01-2199, p. 3, 839 So. 2d at 218.

  6. State v. McClendon

    133 So. 3d 239 (La. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 14 times

    Applying the district court's supported findings of fact, we review the district judge's holdings on questions of law, including the reasonableness of government conduct under the Fourth Amendment, de novo. See Id., 08–2262 at p. 4, 45 So.3d at 580;State v. Pham, 01–2199, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218. Should we find no reversible legal error in the court's reasonableness determination, we then review the district judge's decision to grant a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, see Wells, 08–2262 at p. 5, 45 So.3d at 581, as the ruling as to whether the exclusionary rule is being properly applied under Fourth Amendment doctrine is a mixed question of law and fact.

  7. State v. Jones

    119 So. 3d 9 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    The district court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and its ultimate determination of Fourth Amendment reasonableness is reviewed de novo. State v. Pham, 01–2199, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218;U.S. v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5 Cir.1993). Accordingly, β€œon mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo.”

  8. State v. Jones

    NO. 2012-KA-0438 (La. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013)

    The district court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and its ultimate determination of Fourth Amendment reasonableness is reviewed de novo. State v. Pham, 01-2199, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218; U.S. v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5 Cir. 1993). Accordingly, "on mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo."

  9. State v. Williams

    62 So. 3d 244 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times

    The district court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and the district court's ultimate determination of Fourth Amendment reasonableness is reviewed de novo. State v. Pham, 2001-2199, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218 (citing U.S. v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5 Cir. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 853, 114 S.Ct. 155, 126 L.Ed.2d 116.) Search incident to arrest is a long recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

  10. State v. Taylor

    50 So. 3d 922 (La. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    State v. Anderson, 06-1031, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/17/07), 949 So.2d 544, 546, writ denied, 07-0468 (La.10/12/07), 965 So.2d 399 (citing State v. Pham, 01-2199, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218). On the record before this court, we cannot conclude the trial court erred in ruling that that the State failed to satisfy its burden of proving that this warrantless search was reasonable.