State Of Louisiana v. Deshawn Henderson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State Of Louisiana v. Deshawn Henderson

DecidedJuly 19, 2021

Docket2021KW0367

StatusUnknown

This text of State Of Louisiana v. Deshawn Henderson (State Of Louisiana v. Deshawn Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Of Louisiana v. Deshawn Henderson, (La. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 0367

VERSUS

DESHAWN MONTRELL HENDERSON JULY 19, 2021

In Re: Deshawn Montrell Henderson, for applying supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 20- 05406.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s ruling denying the defendant' s motion to suppress is reversed. Based on the testimony given at the preliminary hearing examination and introduced at the suppression hearing, the State failed to prove the inventory of the vehicle' s contents was necessary. Herein, the record reflects the following factors: ( 1) the State failed to show that the vehicle could not safely remain where it was

located; ( 2) the search was conducted in the field; ( 3) there was no testimony that a tow truck was called before the search commenced; ( 4) there was no testimony that relator was asked if he would consent to a search, if the vehicle contained valuables, or if he would consent to a waiver of the protections afforded by an inventory search; and ( 5) relator was not given an opportunity to make arrangements for someone to pick up the vehicle from the location. An inventory search may not be used as a subterfuge for rummaging through the arrestee' s vehicle without a warrant for the primary purpose of evidence. seizing State v. Griffin, 2007- 0974 ( La. 1st Cir. 2/ 8/ 08), App. 984 So. 2d 97, 109. Moreover, although we recognize that relator failed to show proof of insurance in violation La. of R. S. 32: 863. 1( A), this action alone does not negate the requirement that an officer refrain from inventorying a vehicle for the purpose of seizing evidence. See State v. Dyson, 2018- 1744 ( La. App, lst Cir. 3/ 6/ 19), 2019 WL 1084213; State v. Resit, 2017- 0824 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 24/ 17), 2017 WL 3140820, writ denied, 2017- 1455 ( La. 11/ 13/ 17), 230 So. 3d 205. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

VGW JEW EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY C E K OF COURT FOR THE COURT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 0367

VERSUS

DESHAWN MONTRELL HENDERSON JULY 19, 2021

In Re: Deshawn Montrell Henderson, for applying supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 20- 05406.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s ruling denying the defendant' s motion to suppress is reversed. Based on the testimony given at the preliminary hearing examination and introduced at the suppression hearing, the State failed to prove the inventory of the vehicle' s contents was necessary. Herein, the record reflects the following factors: ( 1) the State failed to show that the vehicle could not safely remain where it was

located; ( 2) the search was conducted in the field; ( 3) there was no testimony that a tow truck was called before the search commenced; ( 4) there was no testimony that relator was asked if he would consent to a search, if the vehicle contained valuables, or if he would consent to a waiver of the protections afforded by an inventory search; and ( 5) relator was not given an opportunity to make arrangements for someone to pick up the vehicle from the location. An inventory search may not be used as a subterfuge for rummaging through the arrestee' s vehicle without a warrant for the primary purpose of evidence. seizing State v. Griffin, 2007- 0974 ( La. 1st Cir. 2/ 8/ 08), App. 984 So. 2d 97, 109. Moreover, although we recognize that relator failed to show proof of insurance in violation La. of R. S. 32: 863. 1( A), this action alone does not negate the requirement that an officer refrain from inventorying a vehicle for the purpose of seizing evidence. See State v. Dyson, 2018- 1744 ( La. App, lst Cir. 3/ 6/ 19), 2019 WL 1084213; State v. Resit, 2017- 0824 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 24/ 17), 2017 WL 3140820, writ denied, 2017- 1455 ( La. 11/ 13/ 17), 230 So. 3d 205. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

VGW JEW EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY C E K OF COURT FOR THE COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State Of Louisiana v. Deshawn Henderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-louisiana-v-deshawn-henderson-lactapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack