State Of Louisiana v. Donald Plaisance

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2025 KW 0782

VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

DONALD C. PLAISANCE SEPTEMBER 18, 2025

In Re: Donald C. Plaisance, applying for supervisory writs,
22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No.
4517-F-2024.

BEFORE : THERIOT, PENZATO, AND BALFOUR, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be
supported by probable cause shown, through a sworn affidavit
submitted to the magistrate. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. A search
warrant may issue only upon probable cause established to the
satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person,
reciting facts that establish the cause for the issuance of the
warrant. La. Code Crim. P. art. 162(A); United States v. Brown,
941 F.2d 1300, 1302-03 (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Once a
defendant has shown the affidavit contains false statements, the
burden shifts to the State to prove the veracity of the allegations
in the affidavit. If the court finds that the affidavit contains

misrepresentations, it must decide whether they were
intentional. If the court finds that the misrepresentations were
intentional, the search warrant must be quashed. On the other

hand, if the court finds that the misrepresentations were
inadvertent or negligent, the inaccurate statements should be
excised and the remaining statements tested for probable
cause. State v. Brown, 2018-01999 (La. 9/30/21), 330 So.3d 199,
252-53, cert. denied, U.S. , 142 S.Ct. 1702, 212 L.Ed.2d
596 (2022).

Here, the record shows the detective’s statement in the
application for the search warrant that he responded to the address
in question after receiving information of narcotics activity at
the property was factually incorrect. The detective failed to note
that during two weeks of on and off surveillance, he observed
nothing to suggest that illegal narcotics activity was occurring
at relator’s residence. The detective further conceded this fact
at the suppression hearing. Moreover, there is no indication that
the information provided by the confidential informant was based
on personal observations. The district court failed to excise the
factually incorrect statement from the application and test the
remaining statements for probable cause. In this case, when the
factually incorrect statement is removed from the application, the
only remaining fact is that the detective allegedly smelled the
odor of marijuana coming from inside relator’s residence during
the knock and talk investigation. Accordingly, the ruling denying
the motion to suppress is reversed, the motion is granted, and
this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PAGE 2 OF 2

MRT
KEB

Penzato, J., I would grant certiorari and docket.

(\" OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
\ a {Ny .
Autre DOO“ 90

EPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT