State Of Louisiana v. Kari Shisler & Joseph Dyczewski

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 01, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
KARI SHISLER & JOSEPH DYCZEWSKI
No.2020-KK-00145
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Joseph Dyczewski - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 543- 065, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2019-K-1096;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 01, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, J., would grant and docket.
Hughes, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JTG
JDH
SJC
JHB
05/01/2020 "See News Release 015 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/01/20
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2020-KK-00145
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
KARI SHISLER & JOSEPH DYCZEWSKI
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans
Granted. “ Warrantless entries into the home of the accused for arres t or
seizure are invalid in th e absence of exigent circumstances.” State v. Welch , 449
So.2d 468, 470 (La. 1984), citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371,
63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The police need both probable cause (to arrest or to search)
and exigent circumstances to justify a non -consensual warrantless intrusion into
private premises. State v. Hathaway , 411 So.2d 1074 , 1080 (La. 1982). Exigen t
circumstances include the possibility of the destruction of evidence; the need to
prevent the offender’s escape; and the possibility of a violent confrontation which
could cause injury to the offic ers and the public. Id. In addition, this Court has
recognized that a quick search of the premises to determine the presence of another
perpetrator constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Perry, 502
So.2d 543, 556-557 (La. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 87, 108 S.Ct. 205, 98 L.Ed.2d
156 (1987); State v. White , 399 So.2d 172, 175–176 (La. 1981). A “trial judge's
ruling [on a fact question ], based on conclusions of credibility and weight of the
testimony, is entitled to great deference and will n ot be disturbed on appeal unless
there is no evid ence to support the rulin g.” State v. Wells, 08-2262, pp. 4 –5 (La.
7/6/10), 45 So. 3d 577, 580– 81 (citing State v. Bourque , 622 So .2d 198, 222
(La.1993)).
Here, the trial court made credibility determinations based on the testimony
of multiple officer s involved in defendan t’s arrest and fou nd tha t officers lacked

probable cause to search defendant’s residence . Furthermore, observation that
defendant’s home had security cameras failed to amount to exigent circumstances to
enter defendant’s home after officers arrested him for possession of a small quantity
of marijuana near his residence. Thus, the trial court correctly suppressed the
evidence recovered from the residence and the statements made by defendant
following the illegal entry. Therefore, the court of appeal’s ruling is reversed.