State v. Harmon
State v. Harmon, 754 So. 2d 986 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999).
Cited by
- State v. Benoit 817 So. 2d 11 La. 2002
- State v. Dorsey 779 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Henderson 727 So. 2d 1180
- State v. Antoine 721 So. 2d 562
- State v. Palmer 723 So. 2d 1040
- State v. Carouthers 618 So. 2d 880
Opinion text
| ¶ NORRIS, J, dissenting. I dissent. La. R.S. 32:295.1 F states: “No vehicle, the contents of the vehicle, driver, or passenger in a vehicle shall be inspected, detained, or searched solely because of a violation of this Section.” In other words, a seat belt violation does not justify a stop and search. The evidence arising from this illegal search was properly suppressed by the District Court. Admittedly, a 1995 amendment to this subsection was promoted as an effort to make the failure to wear a seat belt a “primary offense.” La. Acts 1995, No. 643. The result of this amendment — quoted above — has been held by one court to authorize a stop, but by two other courts not to authorize a stop. State v. Henderson, 98-614 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98) , 727 So.2d 1180 ; contra, State v. Antoine, 98-369 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98) , 721 So.2d 562 , and State v. Palmer, 98-2236 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/18/98) , 723 So.2d 1040 . This conflicting jurisprudence *987 shows that, at best, the statute is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the defendant. See, e.g., State v. Carouthers, 618 So.2d 880 (La.1993).