State of Louisiana v. Arthur J. Handy AKA Arthur G.handy AKA Arthur James Handy AKA Arthor James Handy AKA Arth Handy

NUMBER 10-625

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ARTHUR J. HANDY

AMY, J., concurs in the result and assigns separate reasons.

I agree with the majority’s determination that the trial court abused its

discretion in its ultimate denial of the motion to suppress. However, I find that the

record supports the trial court determination that the totality of the circumstances in

this case justified an initial stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868

(1968) and La.Code Crim.P. art. 215.1. In short, the officers were located in an area

known for criminal activity, they detected the smell of marijuana, another person at

the house discarded a bag and jumped the fence in order to flee, and one of the

officers saw the defendant place something into his pants.

However, I find that these facts only support the initial, investigatory detention

and pat down search. I find no indication in the record that this officer had

reasonable suspicion that the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon to justify this

type of further, intrusive search of his person, i.e., the use of a flashlight to peer inside

the defendant’s clothing in the area of his buttocks. See La.Code Crim.P. art.

215.1(B). Accordingly, I find that the ultimate retrieval of the evidence exceeded

permissible bounds and required a granting of the motion to suppress.

For these reasons, I concur in the result.

NUMBER 10-625

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ARTHUR J. HANDY

AMY, J., concurs in the result and assigns separate reasons.

I agree with the majority’s determination that the trial court abused its

discretion in its ultimate denial of the motion to suppress. However, I find that the

record supports the trial court determination that the totality of the circumstances in

this case justified an initial stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868

(1968) and La.Code Crim.P. art. 215.1. In short, the officers were located in an area

known for criminal activity, they detected the smell of marijuana, another person at

the house discarded a bag and jumped the fence in order to flee, and one of the

officers saw the defendant place something into his pants.

However, I find that these facts only support the initial, investigatory detention

and pat down search. I find no indication in the record that this officer had

reasonable suspicion that the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon to justify this

type of further, intrusive search of his person, i.e., the use of a flashlight to peer inside

the defendant’s clothing in the area of his buttocks. See La.Code Crim.P. art.

215.1(B). Accordingly, I find that the ultimate retrieval of the evidence exceeded

permissible bounds and required a granting of the motion to suppress.

For these reasons, I concur in the result.