State Of Louisiana v. James E. Tate

Supreme Court of Louisiana
August 20, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
JAMES E. TATE
No. 2024-KK-00927
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 560- 640, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2024-K-0354;
_ _ _ _ _ _
August 20, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., would deny.
SJC
JLW
JTK
WJC
JBM
08/20/2024 "See News Release 039 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-KK-00927
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
JAMES E. TATE
On Supervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that
the police officers did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an
investigatory stop of the car in which defendant was a passenger. A traffic stop,
analogous to a so-called “Terry1 stop,” is permitted under the Fourth Amendment in
the absence of probable cause when an officer’s “observations lead him reasonably
to suspect” that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to
commit a crime. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439–40, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3150,
82 L.Ed.2d 317, (1984). The officer may stop the defendant in order to “investigate
the circumstances that provoke suspicion.” Id., quoting United States v. Brignoni–
Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2580, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). A reviewing
court “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see whether
the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal
wrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750, 151
L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). This “allows officers to draw on their own experience and
specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative
information available to them.” Id., 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. at 750–51.
In this case, while patrolling at approximately 7:30 p.m. on December 1, 2023,
1 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

2
officers observed a grey Camaro with red racing stripes and an invalid license plate2
idling with its lights on in a parking lot of an apartment complex in an area known
to be a “hub for illegal narcotics, weapons, and vehicle violations.” The officers
recognized the car (based on its color, make, and missing valid license plate) from
an incident earlier in the week when they observed it speeding in a reckless manner.
Based on this information, the officers were justified in initiating an
investigatory stop of the Camaro in order to dispel their suspicion that its occupants
had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime. In particular,
having previously witnessed the Camaro driven on the streets of the city without a
valid license plate, the officers reasonably suspected the driver of the idling vehicle
was about to, or had just committed a traffic violation pursuant to New Orleans
Municipal Code § 154-307. As soon as the stop was initiated, the driver fled on foot
before he was captured, and defendant, the passenger, attempted to step out of the
Camaro and was detained. From their lawful position outside the Camaro, the
officers observed, in plain view, two firearms. A name-check of the occupants
revealed both had prior felony convictions. Based on all this information, the officers

2 In the place on the rear bumper where a license plate should have been affixed was a piece of
paper with words typed on it inside a plastic cover. It was neither a valid permanent nor temporary
license plate. New Orleans Municipal Code § 154-307, provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Every person who is a resident of the state and owns a motor vehicle of any
description must first obtain an appropriate, current, valid license plate from the
state before driving his motor vehicle upon any public streets of the city, except that
a 20-day temporary registration marker may be used for new cars when lawfully
issued by a dealer.

(b) No vehicle shall be driven on the streets of this city with any vehicle license
plate which is mutilated, defaced, damaged, or obscured in such a manner as to
make the letters and numerals thereon illegible.

(c) A license plate shall be placed and positioned to be clearly visible and securely
fastened. At night, the plate must be so illuminated as to be visible from a distance
of 50 feet.

(d) It shall further be a violation of this section for any person to operate upon the
streets of the city a motor vehicle not bearing a current license plate from this state
or from the state where the owner resides, if he is a nonresident.

3
applied for and were granted a warrant to search the Camaro. The search turned up
firearms, illegal narcotics, and additional evidence which was seized. This evidence
formed the basis of the charges against defendant. The initial stop of the vehicle was
justified, and each step thereafter taken by the officers fell within the confines of the
Fourth Amendment. The trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s
motion to suppress and by finding no probable cause. The decision of the trial court
is reversed. The evidence is admissible. The matter is remanded for further
proceedings.