State Of Louisiana v. Darick Deon Carter C/w State Of Louisiana Vs. Karshalona Griffin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 03, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DARICK DEON CARTER
C/W
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
KARSHALONA GRIFFIN
No.2019-K-01443
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Number(s) 355,189 and 355,262, Court
of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number(s) 52,667-KW and 52,668-KW;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 03, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Johnson, C.J., would deny.
Hughes, J., would deny.
Genovese, J., would deny.
JHB
JLW
SJC
WJC
06/03/2020 "See News Release 020 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

06/03/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 19-K-1443
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
DARI
CK DEON CARTER
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO
PE
R CURIAM:
W
rit granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed, and the ruling of
the trial court denying defendants’ motion to suppress evidence seized during the
warrantless search of a probationer’s home is reinstated. Defendant Carter was on
probation for a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act at all times
relevant to the search at issue in this case. As such, Carter was required to submit
to substance abuse examinations as ordered by the probation officer pursuant to
La.C.Cr.P. art. 895(A)(12), and was likewise ordered to submit to random drug
testing as directed by his probation officer pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 895(C)(1).
Probation and Parole Officer Damian McDowell testified that Carter’s regularly
assigned probation officer, Officer Amanda Spivey, requested that Officer
McDowell collect a urine sample from Carter for a drug screen because she had
been temporarily placed on restricted (light) duty for medical reasons, which
prevented her from conducting field work. Officer McDowell further testified that
in any event, department policy prohibited a female probation officer from
obtaining a urine sample from a male probationer, such that Officer Spivey would

2

have had to direct a male officer to collect a urine sample from Carter or any other
male probationer.
Because Officer McDowel l had the authority under La.C.Cr.P. art.
895(A)(12) and/or La.C.Cr.P. art. 895(C)(1) to collect a urine sample for drug
screening from Carter, Officer McDowell was permitted limited entry into Carter’s
home to supervise the collection of a urine sample. C arter informed the officers
that another adult and children were also inside the home, and once inside, Officer
McDowell and other officers properly conducted a limited protective sweep for
officer safety. See Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108
L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). During this sweep, officers contacted co -defendant
Karshalona Griffin in a bedroom, who informed them that two weapons were
located in a safe in an adjacent bathroom. The officers recovered two handguns
from the unlocked safe , and at this point had probable cause to arrest Carter for a
probation violation. The officers also had sufficiently exigent circumstances to
search the remainder of the home for weapons and/or drugs, considering there were
children in the home and some unsecured weapons had already been located. See
State v. Brumfield, 05-2500, p. 9 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/20/06), 944 So.2d 588, 576
(relying upon United States v. Antwine , 873 F.2d 1144, 1145 –47 (8th Cir.1989)
and similar cases). An assault rifle, a shotgun, $2 0,000 in cash, over a pound of
marijuana, and a sales ledger were located elsewhere in the home.
For these reasons, the trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motion to
suppress. Accordingly, the court of appeal’s ruling is reversed, the trial court’s
denial of defendants’ motion to suppress is reinstated, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings.