State ex rel. T.H.

120 So. 3d 690, 2013 WL 4081215, 2013 La. LEXIS 1663
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided July 9, 2013·No. No. 2013-CK-1577·Published

Opinion

In re H., T.;—Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Juvenile Court Orleans Parish, No. 2013-116-01-DQ-E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0883.

|,Writ granted. The trial court’s ruling is reversed, and the defendant’s motion to suppress is granted. Under the circumstances, the detention of the defendant amounted to a de facto arrest for which the police needed probable cause, not simply reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. State v. Broussard, 00-3230, pp. 3-4 (La.5/24/02), 816 So.2d 1284, 1287 (“[Bjrevity alone does not always distinguish investigatory stops from arrests, as the former may be accompanied by arrest-like features, e.g. use of drawn weapons and handcuffs, which may, but do not invariably, render the seizure a de facto arrest.”) (citations omitted). The police lacked probable cause to arrest defendant and the trial court therefore erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the illegal arrest.

KNOLL and GUIDRY, JJ., would deny.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State ex rel. T.H., 120 So. 3d 690, 2013 WL 4081215, 2013 La. LEXIS 1663 (La. 2013).

120 So. 3d 690 (State ex rel. T.H.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Broussard
816 So. 2d 1284 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2002)