State Of Louisiana v. Tyron Burton

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 09, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
TYRON BURTON
No. 2025-KK-00919
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 563- 427, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2025-K-0317;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 09, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., concurs.
WJC
JLW
JBM
PDG
JMG
CRC
12/09/2025 "See News Release 053 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-KK-00919
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
TYRON BURTON
On Supervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans Criminal
PER CURIAM
New Orleans Police Department officers were patrolling an area in New
Orleans East, known by the officers as a location where stolen vehicles are found.
They encountered a vehicle that matched a stolen vehicle description. The vehicle
did not have a license plate. When the officers turned on their lights, the front right
door of the vehicle opened, and defendant fled on foot. Officers pursued the
defendant into an overgrown lot where they found him hiding behind a dirt pile in
some brush. Defendant complie d with verbal commands from the officers to stop
and lie down. Officers then searched the area where defendant had hidden and
discovered a discarded firearm on the ground.
Defendant was charged under La. R.S. 14:95.1 with possession of a firearm
by a felon. The trial court suppressed the firearm. The appellate court denied the
state’s writ, with one judge dissenting. The state now seeks review from this court.
We find error.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of
the Louisiana Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The
protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to brief investigatory stops. Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Such investigatory stops
require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which is something less than

2

probable cause. State v. Huntley , 97-0965 (La. 3/13/98), 708 So.2d 1048, 1049.
Reasonable suspicion requires only a minimal level of objective justification. Id.
This includes knowledge of recent crime patterns or incidents of crimes. State v.
Martin, 99-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/1/99), 738 So.2d 98, 102. “[N]ervous, evasive
behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion” and “[h]eadlong
flight–wherever it occurs –is the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily
indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).
The totality of the circumstances here are critical. The officers were patrolling
an area where stolen vehicles are often recovered. They saw a vehicle that matched
a stolen vehicle description. The vehicle had no license plate. When officers
attempted to stop this vehicle, defendant fled from it on foot. Given the totality of
these circumstances, reasonable suspicion existed to stop the defendant.
During his flight, the officers also observed the defendant leaning forward and
clutching the front of his clothing, as if he was reaching for a firearm. Defendant
then fled into an open field and attempted to hide. After defendant complied with
verbal instructions to surrender, officers searched the area where he had hidden and
recovered the firearm. No Fourth Amendment protection is given to abandoned
items, and open fields are not afforded the same Fourth Amendment protection as a
person’s home or other private structures. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44
S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); State v. Ryan , 358 So.2d 1274, 1276 (La. 1978);
Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). Thus,
defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the firearm found abandoned
in an open field that was not his private property.
The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. This
judgment is hereby reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

3

REVERSED AND REMANDED