State Of Louisiana v. J Ay-quan Carter

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 26, 2021
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
J
AY-QUAN CARTER
No.2020-KK-01193
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Number(s) 1701960, 1st Circuit
Court of Appeal, Number(s) 2020 KW 0504;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 26, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Genovese.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
01/26/2021 “See News Release 004 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2020-KK-1193
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
JAY-QUAN CARTER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA
PER CURIAM
We grant the State’s writ application to review a judgment from the court of
appeal reversing the trial court’s denial of respondent Jay-Quan Carter’s motion to
suppress evidence seized as the result of a dog sniff during a routi ne traffic stop.
The court of appeal found the state trooper had extended the stop beyond the time
required to issue a citation for the minor traffic violation to allow the canine unit to
arrive in contravention of the parameters set forth in Rodriguez v. United States, 575
U.S. 348, 350-351, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed. 2d 492 (2015).
The testimony and evidence from the suppression hearing disclose the
following. At approximately 1:30 a.m., on the morning of April 19, 2017, Louisiana
State Trooper Ryan Zimmerman was on routine patrol on I-12 in Tangipahoa Parish
when he o bserved a motorist traveling below the speed limit. He pulled onto the
interstate behind the motorist, noticed the vehicle’s partially obstructed license plate,
and observed the driver cross over the solid yellow line on the left shoulder of the
road.1 At that point, Zimmerman decided to stop the motorist for a traffic violation:
improper lane usage. Two men were in the vehicle: Caliph Romero, the driver, and
Jay-Quan Carter, the front seat passenger.
Zimmerman made contact with Romero from the passe nger side open
window. He obtained Romero’s license, asked him to exit and step to the rear of the
1 The vehicle was a Honda Civic with a North Carolina license plate.
01/26/2021

2

vehicle, and explained that he had stopped the vehicle for crossing the yellow line.
According to Zimmerman, Romero was nervous and his hands were shaking .
Zimmerman asked Romero where he was coming from and where he was going.
After repeating the questions back to Zimmerman, which Zimmerman found odd,
Romero told him that he had been visiting family in Texas. Romero explained that
the vehicle he was drivi ng was a rental which the passenger, Carter, had rented.
Romero said Carter was his “brother.”
Zimmerman returned to the passenger side of the vehicle to question Carter.
Carter explained the two men were in Houston, where they stayed for a couple of
days with friends, but didn’t know the exact area. According to Zimmerman, Carter
was nervous as he struggled to remove his driver’s license , so he handed his wallet
to Zimmerman to remove it. Carter also gave Zimmerman the rental agreement and
told him Romero “is a friend of mine,” but “he’s like a brother to me, though.”
Zimmerman re -entered his police vehicle to conduct a warrant check and
examine the rental agreement. The agreement indicated Carter had rented the vehicle
in Charlotte, North Carolina on April 17 - two days prior to the stop - and the vehicle
had to be returned to Charlotte on April 19, the day of the stop. Zimmerman testified
that he doubted Romero’s assertion that the two men had been in Texas for multiple
days, believing it was impossible. Zimmerman said he performed a simple google
search which indicated a roughly 15-hour drive from Charlotte to Houston. Because
the vehicle was rented the afternoon of the 17th, even assuming it was driven straight
to Texas with no stops, the two men would not have arrived in Texas until roughly
4 a.m. on April 18. And because the stop occurred roughly four hours from the
Texas border on the morning of the 19 th, this would mean they would have been in
Texas from about 4 a.m. on the 18 th to 8 or 9 p.m. on that same date. Zimmerman
found it suspicious that one would travel so far for so short a stay. Zimmerman also

3

noted that the rental agreement placed a 1,000 mile travel limit on the vehicle, which
a roundtrip between North Carolina and Texas would exceed by over 1,000 miles.
Zimmerman exited his police vehicle and reengaged Romero. At that point,
Zimmerman testified, he felt he had reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop and
believed there was “more to it than just issuing a citation.” Zimmerman informed
Romero that he was not listed on the rental agreement and therefore should not be
driving the vehicle. Romero responded that he recently began driving because
Carter was tired; Zimmerman expres sed incredulity as to why Romero would be
tired, as Houston was only a few hours from the point of the stop. Zimmerman
informed Romero that a driver in Louisiana must keep his vehicle in the proper lane
of travel.
Zimmerman then asked Carter to exit the vehicle and walk back to the police
vehicle, where he questioned Carter further about the rental agreement. He also
asked Carter who his friend in Texas was, to which Carter responded that he didn’t
know. Zimmerman asked Carter if he had ever been arrested before, to which Carter
replied that he had been arrested for “weed,” and that he was “going to court” soon.
Zimmerman then asked Carter whether there was cocaine or other contraband in the
vehicle and presented him with a “consent to search form.” Carter withheld consent.
By the 15:34 mark on the video, Officer Shane Tilford, a canine handler,
arrived on the scene. The officers conducted a pat down of Romero and Carter, but
found no weapons. Tilford’s canine then conducted a drug sniff of the veh icle and
alerted on the trunk. A search of the vehicle yielded more than 500 grams of cocaine.
Carter and Romero were arrested.
The trial court denied Carter’s motion to suppress, stating:
In this particular case, based on the violation that was charged, which
was improper lane usage, I did find that the stop was in excess of an
amount of time which I consider to be reasonable to write a ticket for
that type of violation absent some other finding with respect to

4

reasonable suspicion. I think this is basically a close call with regard to
whether or not there is reasonable suspicion.

As is often the case, there was a discussion of nervousness. There was
also testimony as to inconsistent statements as to the purpose of the trip
that was being engage d in by defendants. There was also some issue
with respect to the length relative to the explanation of the trip.

While I think this is a fairly close factual situation, I think there is
sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the actions that were ta ken,
and I will therefore deny the motion to suppress.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5,
of the Louisiana Constitution protect people against unreasonable searches and
seizures. A defendant may move to suppres s any evidence from use at trial on the
basis that it was unconstitutionally obtained. La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 703(A) . A
search and seizure conducted without a warrant issued on probable cause is per se
unreasonable unless the State can affirmatively show that the warrantless search and
seizure was justified by one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant
requirement. See La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 703(D); State v. Surtain, 2009-1835, p.7
(La. 3/16/10), 31 So. 3d 1037, 1043. The trial court’s ruling on the matter must be
afforded great weight and will not be set aside unless there is an abuse of discretion.
State v. Thompson, 2011-0915, p. 13 (La. 5/8/12), 93 So. 3d 553, 563; State v. Wells,
2008-2262, p. 5 (La. 7/6/10); 45 So. 3d 580, 581. When a trial court makes findings
of fact based on the credibility of the witnesses, a reviewing court owes those
findings great deference, and may not overt urn those findings unless there is no
evidence to support those findings. Thompson, 2011-0915, p. 13-14, 93 So. 3d at
563. Legal findings or conclusions of the trial court are reviewed de novo. Id. at 14,
93 So. 3d at 563.
Pursuant to the investigatory stop recognized by the United States Supreme
Court in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 (1968), a police
officer may briefly seize a person if the officer has an objectively reasonable
suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that the person is, or is about

5

to be, engaged in criminal conduct or is wanted for past criminal acts. Louisiana
Code of Criminal Procedure article 215.1(A) provides that an officer ’s reasonable
suspicion of crime allows a limited investigation of a person. However, reasonable
suspicion is insufficient to justify custodial interrogation, even though the
interrogation is investigative. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 499, 103 S.Ct. 1319,
1325, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); State v. Fisher, 1997-1133, p. 5 (La. 9/9/98), 720 So.
2d 1179, 1183.
As a general matter, “the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where
the police have probable cause t o believe that a traffic violation has occurred.”
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1772, 135 L.Ed.2d 89
(1996) (citations omitted). The standard is a purely objective one that does not take
into account the subjective beliefs or expectations of the detaining officer. Id., 517
U.S. at 813, 116 S.Ct. at 1774 (“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary,
probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”). Although they may serve as the
prelude to the investig ation of much more serious offenses, even relatively minor
traffic violations provide an objective basis for lawfully detaining the vehicle and its
occupants. State v. Waters, 2000-0356, p. 4 (La. 3/12/01), 780 So. 2d 1053, 1056
(per curiam). Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 215.1(D) provides that
in conducting a traffic stop “an officer may not detain a motorist for a period of time
longer than reasonably necessary to complete the investigation of the violation and
issuance of a citation for the violation, absent reasonable suspicion of additional
criminal activity.” During the stop, the officer has the right to conduct a routine
license and registration check and, while doing so, may engage in conversation with
the driver and any passenger. See State v. Lopez, 2000-0562, p. 3 (La. 10/30/00),
772 So. 2d 90, 92-93 (per curiam). If the officer develops reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity, he may further detain the individual while he diligently pursues a
means of investigation likely to quickly confirm or dispel the particular suspicion.

6

United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1575, 84 L.Ed.2d 605
(1985). In determining whether the officer has a reasonable suspicion of some
separate illegal activity that justifies further detention, the totality of the
circumstances must be taken into account. State v. Kalie, 1996-2650, p. 3 (La.
9/19/97), 699 So. 2d 879, 881 (per curiam).
In Illinois v. Caballes , 543 U.S. 405, 406, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842
(2005), the Supreme Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic
stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable seizures.
“Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic -stop
context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’—to address the traffic violation that
warranted the stop . . . .” id, 543 U.S. at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834 and attend to related
safety concerns, Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1619-1620, 191 L.Ed 2d
492. In Rodriguez, , the Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Caballes and added
that “[b]ecause addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may ‘last no
longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose’” and “[a]uthority for the seizure
thus ends when t asks tied to the traffic infraction are —or reasonably should have
been—completed.” Id. However, recognizing that “detours” from the mission of
traffic enforcement can be justified under some circumstances, the Rodriguez court
found that reasonable suspicio n of criminal activity can justify detention beyond
completion of the traffic infraction investigation, and the court remanded to the
Eighth Circuit to determine whether such reasonable suspicion existed. Rodriguez,
575 U.S. at 358, 135 S.Ct. at 1616-17.
In the present case, the trial court found the traffic stop was extended beyond
the time he considered reasonable to write a ticket for the traffic violation, absent
some finding of reasonable suspicion. The trial court conceded it was a close call ,
but ultimately concluded the state trooper had reasonable suspicion to extend the
stop. The trial court apparently found Zimmerman to be a credible witness,

7

referencing his testimony that Romero and Carter were nervous and their statements
as to the purpose and length of the trip were inconsistent. The trial court’s finding of
reasonable suspicion based on Zimmerman’s testimony is entitled to great deference.
Furthermore, the vehicle rental agreement indicates Romero was not an authorized
driver and Zimmerman suspected Carter had exceeded the 1000 mile travel limit
under the agreement. Last, the dashcam video show ed less than 17 minutes had
elapsed between the initial stop of the vehicle and the canine ’s alert to the trunk.
Louisiana courts have upheld detentions of similar duration when the detaining
officers diligently pursued their investigation. See e.g., State v. Miller, 2000-1657,
p. 5 (La. 10/26/01), 798 So.2d 947, 951 (Court upheld 53 -minute detention where
officers a cted diligently in summoning K-9 unit to search vehicle suspected of
transporting marijuana); State v. Coleman , 2019 -1458, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 1 Cir.
6/12/20), 305 So. 3d 878, 882, writ denied 2020-0868 (La. 10/20/20), 303 So. 3d
294 (court upheld a 20-minute traffic stop where defendant appeared nervous and
had no proof of insurance , the trooper observed marijuana residue on the window,
and information obtained from a license plate reader indicated defendant was
untruthful); State v. Burney, 47,056, pp. 11-12 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/23/12), 92 So.3d
1184, 1192-93 (extension of lawful traffic stop for approximately 43 minutes from
the time defendant refused consent to search the vehicle to the K-9 unit’s arrival was
justifiable); State v. Romsky, 2001-1067, p. 10 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/10/02), 817 So.2d
186, 192 (60 -minute detention justifiable where officer called K-9 unit within 5
minutes of stopping vehicle suspected of transporting narcotics).
Given the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused
its discretion in denying Carter’s motion to suppress the evidence . The testimony
and evidence support the trial ’s court’s finding that Zi mmerman had reasonable
suspicion of possible criminal activity to extend the stop to allow a canine to conduct

8

a sniff of the vehicle for contraband. Thus, we find the court of appeal erred in
reversing the trial court and suppressing the evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and vacated, the
judgment of the trial court denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence
is reinstated, and the case remanded for further proceedings.