State Of Louisiana v. Myron T. Bland

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 03, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
MYRON T. BLAND
No. 2023-KK-01632
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Myron T. Bland - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Jefferson, Jefferson Parish Second City Court Number(s) S1158144, Court
of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 23-K-495;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 03, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
JBM
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
04/03/2024 "See News Release 015 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-KK-01632
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
MYRON T. BLAND
On Supervisory Writ to the Jefferson Parish Second City Court, Parish of Jefferson
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
art. 1, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect people against unreasonable searches
and seizures. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968),
the United States Supreme Court recognized the investigatory stop as an exception
to the warrant requirement. The Terry standard is codified in La. C.Cr.P. art. 215.1,
which authorizes a law enforcement officer to stop and question a person in a public
place whom he reasonably suspect s is committing, has committed, or is about to
commit an offense and demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his
actions. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 215.1; see also State v. Belton, 441 So.2d 1195 (La.
1983), cert. denied, Belton v. State, 466 U.S. 953, 104 S.Ct. 2158, 80 L.Ed.2d 543
(1984). In making a brief investigatory stop on less than probable cause to arrest,
the police “must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the
particular person stopped of criminal activity .” State v. Huntley, 97–0965, p. 2 –3
(La.3/13/98), 708 So.2d 1048, 1049, citing State v. Kalie, 96–2650, p. 3
(La.9/19/97), 699 So.2d 879, 881 and United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417,
101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). Based on our review of the testimony
from the motion to suppress hearing, the arresting officer did not articulate any facts
to support a reasonable suspicion that the relator had committed, was committing or
04/03/24

was about to commit a crime to justify an investigatory stop. Therefore, we vacate
the judgments of the lower courts, grant relator’s motion to suppress, and remand
for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED

2