State Of Louisiana v. Axel Ramon Jarquin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 24, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
AXEL RAMON JARQUIN
No. 2025-KK-00503
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN
RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 3189F2024, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 KW 0002;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 24, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket.
Griffin, J., dissents and would grant and docket.
Guidry, J., dissents and would grant and docket.
JDH
WJC
JBM
CRC
09/24/2025 "See News Release 042 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-KK-0503
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v
ALEX JARQUIN
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 22nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA
PER CURIAM
` Writ granted. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the odor
of marijuana alone shall not provide a law enforcement officer with probable cause
to conduct a search without a warrant of a person’s place of residence. LSA-C.Cr.P.
art. 162.4. (Emphasis added). Upon detecting the odor of marijuana emanating from
inside the residence, the officers herein decided to obtain a search warrant. Although
the officers proceeded to conduct an unlawful “protective sweep” before the search
warrant was issued, and included evidence discovered in plain view during the
“protective sweep,” the smell of marijuana alone is sufficient probable cause to
support the issuance of the search warrant. See, e.g., United States v Thurman, No.
21-30450, 2022 WL 2805147, at *5 (5 th Cir. 7/18/22)(“excluding the [information
gained from] the protective sweeps, the search warrant’s reference to the smell of
marijuana emitting from the [apartment] unit supported probable cause”); State v.
Robertson, No. 2014-KA-0252, 2014 WL 4668685, at *5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/19/14),
(officer had probable cause “when he detected the odor of marijuana as [the
defendant’s girlfriend] opened the door.”) The appellate court erred in granting the
defendant’s writ and motion to suppress. The judgment of the court of appeal is
vacated, the district court’s judgment denying the motion to suppress is reinstated,
and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
WRIT GRANTED; MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED; REMANDED.