The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Officers possessing warrants for Vale's (D) arrest had information that D was residing at a specified address. They drove to the address in an unmarked car and set up surveillance of the house. The officers observed a green Chevrolet drive up and sound the horn. The car backed into a parking space and sounded the horn again. D came out of the house, walked up to the passenger side of the car, and briefly conversed with the driver. After looking up and down the street, D returned to this house. The officers knew D because they had arrested him two times in the previous month. Within a few minutes, D came outside again, cautiously looked up and down the street, and proceeded to the passenger side of the car, leaning through the window. The officers were convinced a narcotics sale had taken place. The officers drove toward D, who ran toward the house. Three officers got out of the car and told D to stop as he reached the stairs of the house. Officers informed D that they were going to search the house on the basis of the transaction that just occurred. After informing D of his constitutional rights, the officers found narcotics in a bedroom. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the search of the house did not violate the 4th Amendment because it occurred in the immediate vicinity of D's arrest. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.