State Of Louisiana v. Patrick Antoine, David Catherine, Tyvarius Haynes, and Ashtin Ursin

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2026 KW 0788
VERSUS

DAVID CATHERINE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No.
bc-25-02476, Section VIII.

BEFORE : THERIOT, GREENE, AND EDWARDS, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. A well-settled principle that to be reasonable,
an expectation of privacy must have “a source outside of the Fourth
Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal
property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted
by society.” Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88, 119 S.Ct. 469,
472, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998). There is nothing in the record that
supports the respondent’s contention that he had a legitimate
privacy interest in the video recording on the SD _ card.
Additionally, there was no evidence presented at the suppression
hearing of the contract between the respondent and the videographer
or the steps that the respondent took, if any, to protect his
privacy interest. Furthermore, a person has no legitimate
expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to
third parties because any reasonable expectation of privacy is
destroyed when the risk of disclosure is assumed. See Smith v.
Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580, 2582, 61
L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). See also United States v. Gaulden, 73 F.4th
390, 395 (5th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the district court erred
by granting the motion to suppress, the motion is denied, and this
matter is remanded for further proceedings.

MRT
HG
BDE

SOuRT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

“WOEDUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT