State Of Louisiana v. Shane Clifford Reis

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 16, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
SHANE CLIFFORD REIS
No. 2025-KK-01099
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 0151-F-2024, 0152-
F-2024, 0153-F-2024, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 KW 0666;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 16, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., dissents and would deny.
JBM
JLW
JDH
WJC
JMG
CRC
10/16/2025 "See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-KK-01099
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
SHANE CLIFFORD REIS
On Supervisory Writ to the 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany
PER CURIAM.
Writ granted. As we observed in State v. Jarquin, 25-00503, p. 1 (La. 9/24/25), ---
So. 3d ----, 2025 WL 2717399, although the odor of marijuana alone does not
provide the probable cause required “to conduct a search without a warrant of a
person’s place of residence,” as set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 162.4, it “is sufficient
probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant.” (Emphasis supplied).
Here, the search of the residence which led to the defendant’s arrest was not
conducted without a warrant. To the contrary, a search warrant was obtained after
Detective Alexander Thomas detected the odor of marijuana when he walked
through the residence, with the permission of its owner.1
We find no merit to defendant’s contention that the motion to suppress was
properly granted as some of the evidence listed in the search warrant affidavit was
obtained from an illegal protective sweep. “[W]hen information derived from prior
illegal police action [illegal entry into a home] has been included in the affidavit for
a search warrant, the proper solution is to excise it and re -test the affidavit for
probable cause.” State v. Guarisco, 466 So. 2d 1356, 1359 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1985)
1 In addition to the odor of marijuana, the affidavit for the search warrant included other “Reasons
and Facts” supporting the request for a search warrant, including a “previous complaint of possible
illicit drug activities at the residence.”

(citing State v. Feeback , 411 So. 2d 10 (La. 1982)). 2 Excluding the evidence
observed from the protective sweep in this matter, we find the search warrant’s
reference to the odor of marijuana supported probable cause. See Jarquin, 25-00503,
p. 1, --- So. 3d ----, ----, 2025 WL 2717399 at *1. The trial court erred in granting
the defendant’s motion to suppress. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and
remand for further proceedings.

2 See also, State v. Williams , 46,842, p. 13 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/14/12), 87 So.3d 949, 957 (“the
warrant application also contained evidence that should not have been considered when the warrant
was issued. The proper remedy for curing this defect is to excise the information pertaining to the
illegal arrest and then review the application anew for a probable cause determination.”)