State Of Louisiana v. Cole Meeks

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 10
, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
COLE MEEKS
No. 2025-KK-01511
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: S
tate of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 565- 682, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2025-K-0746;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 10, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
JMG
CRC
12/10/2025 "See News Release 055 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2025-KK-01511
STA
TE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
COLE MEEKS
On
Supervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans Criminal
P
ER CURIAM
W
rit granted. “In reviewing the totality of circumstances for whether
reasonable suspicion existed for making an investigatory stop, the officer ’s past
experience, training and common sense may be considered in determining if his
inferences from the facts at hand were reasonable. A reviewing court should give
deference to the inferences and deductions of a trained police officer that might well
elude an untrained person.” State v. Greenberry , 14-1126, p. 1 (La. 4/10/15), 164
So.3d 824, 825 (internal citations omitted).
The district court abused its discretion relying on State v. Davis, wherein this
Court specifically observed the officers testified they “could not … readily
distinguish between tobacco and marijuana hand-rolled cigarettes.” 359 So.2d 986,
989 (La. 1978). The officer in this matter testified he observed the defendant in the
act of rolling “green vegetable material ” into a hand -rolled cigarette. Thus, the
officer did not simply observe a hand-rolled cigarette, he observed the contents that
were being rolled into the cigarette itself. The officer further testified that, based on
his training, he suspected this to be marijuana. We find this sufficient to establish
reasonable suspicion for the officer to conduct the initial investigatory stop.
Accordingly, the ruling of the district court granting defendant’s motion to suppress

and finding of no probable cause is reversed and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED