State Of Louisiana v. Axel Jarquin

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2025 KW 0002

VERSUS

AXEL RAMON JARQUIN FEBRUARY 26, 2025

In Re: Axel Ramon Jarquin, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd
Judicial District Court, Parish St. No.
of
Tammany,
3189- F- 2024.

BEFORE: WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.

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 La.
place of residence. Code Crim. P.
art. 162. 4.
A protective sweep is justified only when there are
articulable facts which, taken together with the rational
inferences from those facts, would warrant a
reasonably prudent
officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an

individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene." Maryland
v. Buie, 494 U. S. 325, 334, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 1098, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276
1990). A protective sweep conducted as
solely a matter of

standard procedure or policy is not warranted, but rather must be
accompanied by additional exigent circumstances necessitating a
sweep. See State v. Cowans, 2017- 483 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 7/ 6/ 18),
251 So. 3d 1185, 1194, writ denied, 2018- 1302 ( La. 4/ 8/ 19), 267
So. 3d 613. Unlike in Buie, here the sweep was not associated with
an arrest or the execution of a warrant and no testimony was
offered at the
hearing regarding the existence of
suppression

exigent circumstances or that the officer had a reasonable belief,
based on specific and articulable facts, that the areas to be swept
harbored an individual posing a danger to those on the
scene.
Accordingly, the ruling denying the motion to suppress is
reversed, the motion is granted, and this matter is remanded to
the district court for further proceedings.

EW
SMM

Greene, J., dissents. I would deny the writ application.

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

EPUTY- CLERK OF MU
FOR THE COURT