State Of Louisiana v. Akeam Michael Darensburg

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2024 KW 0752

VERSUS

AKEAM MICHAEL DARENSBURG AUGUST 16, 2024

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd
Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No.
0371- F- 2024.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., PENZATO AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s decision to grant the
defendant' s motion to suppress the evidence that the defendant
removed from the car after probable cause arose in this case was
error. See United States v. Davis, 576 F. App' x 292 ( 4th Cir.
2014)( per curiam). Additionally, the district court' s decision to
suppress the defendant' s voluntary statements made while he was
not in custody was error. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S.
291, 300- 01, 100 S. Ct. 1682, 1689, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297 ( 1980).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court' s rulings and remand

this matter for further proceedings.

ARP

TPS

Guidry, C. J., dissents in part and would
deny the writ

application relative to suppression of the evidence. The body
camera video clearly shows that at the time the officer first
approached the vehicle,
the defendant had the bag on his person
while sitting in the vehicle, and the bag remained on his person
when he exited the vehicle. The bag was not something that was
detached from his person that he grabbed on the
exiting
vehicle. As such, I would treat the bag the same as I would treat
a person' s wallet that is on his person. To the extent that the
law only allows the search of the vehicle and the contents of

containers in the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception, I
would suppress the evidence. As the bag was on the defendant' s
person while he was both in the vehicle and when he exited the
vehicle, the
bag should be construed as part of his person and
therefore not subject to a warrantless search under the automobile
exception.

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

EPUTY CLERK OF COU
FOR THE COURT