State Of Louisiana v. Steven Ray Mccarthy

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 20, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
STEVEN RAY MCCARTHY
No.2021-KK-00153
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Number(s) 38998, 1st Circuit Court
of Appeal, Number(s) 2020-KW-1206;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 20, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., would deny for reasons assigned by Justice Genovese.
WJC
JLW
SJC
JBM
04/20/2021 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

04/20/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2021-KK-00153
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
STEVEN RAY MCCARTHY
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, Parish of Livingston
PE
R CURIAM
T
he defendant, while on probation and parole, was arrested after a firearm and
drugs were discovered during a search of his residence. The defendant filed a motion
to suppress, arguing no reasonable suspicion existed to justify the search. At the
suppression hearing, Detective Gray testified he was contacted by the defendant’ s
supervising probation and p arole officer, Agent Mire, who said she received a tip
that the defendant possibly had weapons. Defense counsel objected to this testimony
as hearsay, which the trial court overruled. Detective Gray further testified he
accompanied Agent Mire to conduct the search.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress. It found the information
received by Agent Mire provided reasonable suspicion, which justified the search
pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 895(13)(a). The court of
appeal reversed, finding the State failed to present articulable facts to establish Agent
Mire had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. McCarthy , 2020-1206
(La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/20), 2020 WL 7869453.
Probationers and parolees have a reduced expectation of privacy, which
allows reasonable warrantless searches of their persons and residences by their
probation or parole officer, even though less than probable cause may be shown.
State v. Malone , 403 So.2d 1234 , 1238 (La. 1981). The State must establish

2

reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring. La. Code Crim. P. art.
895(13)(a). In State v. Hamilton, 02-1344 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03), 845 So.2d 383
the court found an anonymous tip concerning drug activity by the parolee amounted
to reasonable suspicion to justify a warrantless search. See also State v. Vailes, 564
So.2d 778, 780- 781 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1990), where the court denied a motion to
suppress a search of a probationer’ s home following a tip from a confidential
informant that the probationer was possibly selling drugs and keeping weapons at
his home.1
Det. Grey testified that Agent Mire contacted him and asked him to
accompany her to the defendant’s residence because she received a tip that defendant
was engaged in suspicious behavior and was alleged to have been in possession of a
firearm. While Agent Mire did not testify to these events, hearsay is admissible
at suppression hearings. State v. Shir ley, 2008-2106 (La. 5/5/09), 10 So. 3d 224,
228–29.
The trial court is vested with great discretion when ruling on a motion to
suppress. State v. Long, 2003-2592 (La. 9/9/04), 884 So. 2d 1176. The trial court’s
findings of fact on a motion to suppress a re reviewed under a clearly erroneous
standard. Here, t he trial court heard the testimony and observe d Detective Gray’s
demeanor. Finding Det ective Gray’s testimony credible, the trial court found
reasonable suspicion for the search. A reviewing court s hould not substitute its
judgment absent manifest error. Id. Based on the foregoing, the trial court was not
manifestly erroneous in its determination that reasonable suspicion existed to justify
the search. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court’s denial
of the defendant’s motion to suppress is reinstated.

1 In Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987), the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting Wisconsin’s law
that required “ reasonable grounds” to search a probationer’s home, held an unauthenticated tip, with no indication
whether its basis was firsthand knowledge, reliable, or corroborated, can still justify the legality of the search under
the Fourth Amendment.