2021KW1134 Nonprecedential Writ granted Processed

State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed December 6, 2021

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

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. 2
d 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