State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee
State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee, No. 2021KW1134 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Dec. 6, 2021).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Waters 780 So. 2d 1053
- State v. Dupont 178 So. 3d 145
- 390 So. 2d 1305 not in our corpus
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 1134
VERSUS
DETRENTA D. LEE 06, 2021
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,
19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge, No. 06- 19- 0107.
BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The granting of the motion to suppress
physical evidence is hereby reversed. The trial court' s legal
finding that the violation of La. R. S. 32: 322( B) failed to
provide probable cause for the traffic stop was erroneous. The
officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting
the defendant of criminal
activity, i. e., probable cause to
believe the defendant had violated La. R. S. 32: 322( B). Under
the law, " the subjective beliefs or expectations of the
detaining officer" are irrelevant. State v. Waters, 2000- 0356
La. 3/ 12/ 01), 780 So. 2d 1053, 1056 ( per curiam); State v.
DuPont, 2014- 0497 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 7/ 14), 2014 WL 5801488
at * 3, writ denied, 2014- 2595 ( La. 9/ 18/ 15), 178 So. 3d 145,
cert. denied, 577 U. S. 1121, 136 S. Ct. 985, 194 L. Ed. 2d 8
2016); see Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813, 116 S. Ct.
1769, 1774 ("[ s] ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary,
probable -cause Fourth Amendment analysis."). Thus, the trial
court' s finding that the officer lacked probable cause to stop
the defendant for violating La. R. S. 32: 322( B) because " it was
extremely dark outside," and " it was
extremely reasonable to
have bright lights on" was irrelevant.
Further, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial
court' s conclusion that the State failed " to overcome [ its]
burden considering the fact that the consent was not given and
there was no waiver[,]" was a clear abuse of discretion. See
State v. Jernigan, 390 So. 2d 1305, 1307- 08 ( La. 1980) (" the
vehicle was in a place and at a time when it was
necessary to
remove it for both reasons of safety and security.").
JMK
WIL
EW
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT