State of Louisiana Versus Bunnak Landon, AKA Hannah Landon, AKA Bunnak Lim

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-K-358

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

BUNNAK LANDON, AKA HANNAH LANDON, COURT OF APPEAL
AKA BUNNAK LIM
STATE OF LOUISIANA

November 19, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE BUNNAK LANDON

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER,
DIVISION "I", NUMBER 23-2009

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

Relator/defendant, Bunnak Landon, seeks supervisory review of the trial
court’s denial of the defense motion to suppress evidence obtained by law
enforcement pursuant to search warrants based on information provided by
defendant’s former attorney. Defendant contends the information supporting
issuance of those warrants is protected by the attorney-client privilege. At the
hearing conducted on March 7, 2024, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to
suppress finding the information is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
For the reasons that follow, we deny this writ application.

Defendant is charged by bill of indictment issued by a Jefferson Parish
Grand Jury on August 17, 2023 with the first-degree murder of a juvenile born on
January 30, 2017 in violation of La. R.S. 14:30 (count 1), obstruction of justice by
removing the victim’s body from the crime scene in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1
(count 2), and obstruction of justice by removing a cell phone from the crime scene
in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (count 3).

The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office obtained a search warrant for 35 OK
Street, Harahan, Louisiana which resulted in recovery of an iPhone belonging to
defendant. In the affidavit of probable cause submitted for the warrant on April
26, 2023, Detective Dardelle Carter states:

As the investigation progressed, investigators received a call from
Christian Bonin, who identified himself as the representing attorney
for Bunnak Landon. Bonin informed investigators that he was told by
Landon that she discarded her mobile device on the property of 35 OK

24-K-358 1

Street in Harahan, Louisiana. Bonin instructed investigators to that
location and stated that evidence related to this investigation may be
contained within the device.

Detective Carter testified at the suppression hearing that the information contained
in his affidavit of probable cause was provided to him by Lieutenant Donald
Meunier.

Admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing was a copy of an email
from Bunnary Sanders (also identified in the document as Bunnary Land) to
attorney Christian Bonin dated April 26, 2023. That email reads as follows:

From: Bunnary Land <bunnarylland@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:53 AM
Subject: Bunnak Landon (evidence)
To: <rcb@boninlawfirm.com>

Good morning. My name is Bunnary Saunders. You have a client,
Bunnak Landon, she is my sister and is in desperate need of your
services. She has reached out to me because she couldn't get in touch
with you. Her boyfriend Michael Fontenelle has been preventing her
from contacting you. She wanted me to tell you about some evidence
that she has on her phone. Last night she walked over to a
construction site and buried a phone in a ziplock bag. There is a new
house that is being built. It is on the corner of Matson Street and OK
Ave. There is a tree that looks like a Y. It is buried there by the root of
the tree. I know this may sound crazy but I am extremely worried
about her and get such a cryptic message like that but these are the
directions that she briefly gave me. I don't know what is going on but
she needs you to help her. She wouldn't go into any details because
she said she was protecting me. Thank you for taking the time out to
read this message. Please do not hesitate to call me when you find
anything out. I fear that something bad is happening. You can reach
me anytime at 205-983-2651.

Bunnary Saunders

It was stipulated that Bonin forwarded the email from Bunnary Sanders to
Jefferson Parish assistant district attorney.

The trial court also received testimony from Lieutenant Donald Meunier,
supervisor of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office Homicide Division. Lieutenant
Meunier testified to receiving a telephone call on April 26, 2023 reporting that
attorney Christian Bonin wanted to speak with him or someone in charge of the
Harahan homicide. At this time, law enforcement was actively searching for
defendant in connection with the homicide. In response, Lieutenant Meunier
called Bonin who advised that a former client’s sister informed him of the location
of a mobile phone buried by defendant near the crime scene.

Lieutenant Meunier transmitted the information received from Bonin to
Detective Carter for purposes of obtaining a search warrant for 35 OK Street.
After defendant’s arrest that same day, Lieutenant Meunier testified that Bonin met
privately with defendant in the JPSO Detective Bureau.

2
24-K-358

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to
suppress. Citing State v. Taylor, 502 So.2d 537 (La. 1987) and State v. Green, 493
So.2d 1178 (La. 1986), the trial court found the information Bonin provided was
not privileged because he was obligated to disclose the existence and location of
material evidence to a criminal investigation. Therefore, the court concluded that
the evidence obtained from the search warrants for 35 OK Street, Harahan,
Louisiana and the red iPhone recovered from that location was constitutionally
seized.

In this writ application, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying
her motion to suppress. Defendant argues that the contents of the email Bonin
received from defendant’s sister is privileged under La. C.E. art. 506. Because
Bonin was never in physical possession of the iPhone, defendant contends the trial
court’s application of Taylor, 502 So.2d. 537 and Green, 493 So.2d 1178 was legal
error. In response, the State argues that an attorney’s possession of physical
evidence of a client’s alleged criminal activity is not protected by the attorney-
client privilege. By extension, the State argues, the privilege likewise does not
attach to information concerning the existence and location of such physical
evidence. The State argues in the alternative that suppression of the evidence is
not appropriate because the search was conducted pursuant to a warrant.

Appellate review of the trial court’s findings of fact are subject to a clearly
erroneous standard while legal conclusions drawn from those facts are reviewed de
novo. State v. Pham, 2001-2199 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218.
The trial court is vested with great discretion when ruling on a motion to suppress.
Id.

There are no disputed facts in the case before us. Attorney Bonin received
an email from defendant’s sister requesting legal services for defendant. The email
also contained information from defendant concerning a phone containing
evidence which she buried in a construction site.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the admissibility of privileged
attorney-client communications may be challenged by a motion to suppress.
Taylor, supra. La. C.E. art. 506 sets forth the general rule of the attorney-client
privilege, which in pertinent part, states:

B. General rule of privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to
disclose, and to prevent another person from disclosing, a confidential
communication, whether oral, written, or otherwise, made for the
purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to
the client, as well as the perceptions, observations, and the like, of the
mental, emotional, or physical condition of the client in connection
with such a communication, when the communication is:

(1) Between the client or a representative of the client and the
client's lawyer or a representative of the lawyer.

“Representative of the client” is defined in La. C.E. art. 506 as “a person having
authority to obtain professional legal services, or to act on advice so obtained, on
behalf of the client.”

3
24-K-358

In Green, 493 So.2d 1178, the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth three
elements for creation of the attorney-client privilege. First, the communication
solicits legal advice and assistance from an attorney. Id. at 1181. Second, the
communication was made with some “reasonable expectation of confidentiality.”
Id. Finally, the communication or information given to the attorney was connected
to the representation. Id.

The email at issue in this case contained a request for legal representation
from defendant made through her sister. According to the record, Bonin had a
prior attorney-client relationship with defendant. The information contained in the
email was connected to the solicitation for legal representation. After receiving the
email and his telephone conversation with Detective Meunier, Bonin privately
consulted with defendant at the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office Detectives
Bureau. We find the email communication’s purpose was to effectuate legal
services for the defendant.

While a hallowed pillar of our legal system, the attorney-client privilege is
not absolute. The privilege does not encompass an attorney’s retention of physical
evidence which is reasonably believed to be material to the investigation of a
crime. Green, 493 So.2d 1178; See also, Taylor, 502 So.2d 537. This exception is
founded upon a lawyer’s superseding duties under ethical rules governing attorney
conduct, which do not permit use of the attorney-client privilege to hinder the
administration of justice. Green, 493 So.2d 1178.

In the case before us, Bonin was presented with information originating
from defendant concerning the existence of a phone containing evidence connected
to the crime under investigation and its location. He was not given possession of
defendant’s phone.1 While the email itself was not physical evidence of the crime
under investigation, it contained information which is not protected by the
attorney-client privilege under Taylor and Green.

On de novo review, for the reasons set forth herein, we find the information
contained in the email concerning the iPhone’s existence and location is not
protected by the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, we find the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence
obtained through a search warrant for 35 OK Street, Harahan, Louisiana and a
search warrant for a red iPhone recovered from that location.

Accordingly, this writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 19th day of November, 2024.

TSM
MEJ
SUS

1
The record presented implies that the lot in which the defendant’s phone was buried was not owned by
defendant or Bonin. As such, we note that Bonin’s compliance with defendant’s request to recover the phone could
have resulted in commission of a trespass offense.

4
24-K-358

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 11/19/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-K-358
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Nancy A. Miller (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Mark D. Plaisance (Relator) Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)
Darren A. Allemand (Respondent)

MAILED
Remy V. Starns (Relator) Paul C. Fleming, Jr. (Relator) Marcus J. Plaisance (Relator)
Attorney at Law Cesar J. Vazquez (Relator) Attorney at Law
301 Main Street Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1123
Suite 700 848 Second Street Prairieville, LA 70769
Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Gretna, LA 70053

Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
(Respondent)
Rachel L. Africk (Respondent)
Assistant District Attorney
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053