State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee

DecidedDecember 6, 2021

Docket2021KW1134

StatusUnknown

This text of State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee (State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee) 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. Detrenta Lee, (La. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 1134

VERSUS

DETRENTA D. LEE 06, 2021

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 06- 19- 0107.

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The granting of the motion to suppress

physical evidence is hereby reversed. The trial court' s legal

finding that the violation of La. R. S. 32: 322( B) failed to provide probable cause for the traffic stop was erroneous. The officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the defendant of criminal activity, i. e., probable cause to believe the defendant had violated La. R. S. 32: 322( B). Under the law, " the subjective beliefs or expectations of the

detaining officer" are irrelevant. State v. Waters, 2000- 0356 La. 3/ 12/ 01), 780 So. 2d 1053, 1056 ( per curiam); State v.

DuPont, 2014- 0497 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 7/ 14), 2014 WL 5801488 at * 3, writ denied, 2014- 2595 ( La. 9/ 18/ 15), 178 So. 3d 145, cert. denied, 577 U. S. 1121, 136 S. Ct. 985, 194 L. Ed. 2d 8 2016); see Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1774 ("[ s] ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable -cause Fourth Amendment analysis."). Thus, the trial court' s finding that the officer lacked probable cause to stop the defendant for violating La. R. S. 32: 322( B) because " it was

extremely dark outside," and " it was extremely reasonable to have bright lights on" was irrelevant.

Further, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court' s conclusion that the State failed " to overcome [ its] burden considering the fact that the consent was not given and

there was no waiver[,]" was a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Jernigan, 390 So. 2d 1305, 1307- 08 ( La. 1980) (" the vehicle was in a place and at a time when it was necessary to

remove it for both reasons of safety and security.").

JMK WIL EW

DEPUTY CLERK 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 1134

VERSUS

DETRENTA D. LEE 06, 2021

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 06- 19- 0107.

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The granting of the motion to suppress

physical evidence is hereby reversed. The trial court' s legal

finding that the violation of La. R. S. 32: 322( B) failed to provide probable cause for the traffic stop was erroneous. The officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the defendant of criminal activity, i. e., probable cause to believe the defendant had violated La. R. S. 32: 322( B). Under the law, " the subjective beliefs or expectations of the

detaining officer" are irrelevant. State v. Waters, 2000- 0356 La. 3/ 12/ 01), 780 So. 2d 1053, 1056 ( per curiam); State v.

DuPont, 2014- 0497 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 7/ 14), 2014 WL 5801488 at * 3, writ denied, 2014- 2595 ( La. 9/ 18/ 15), 178 So. 3d 145, cert. denied, 577 U. S. 1121, 136 S. Ct. 985, 194 L. Ed. 2d 8 2016); see Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1774 ("[ s] ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable -cause Fourth Amendment analysis."). Thus, the trial court' s finding that the officer lacked probable cause to stop the defendant for violating La. R. S. 32: 322( B) because " it was

extremely dark outside," and " it was extremely reasonable to have bright lights on" was irrelevant.

Further, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court' s conclusion that the State failed " to overcome [ its] burden considering the fact that the consent was not given and

there was no waiver[,]" was a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Jernigan, 390 So. 2d 1305, 1307- 08 ( La. 1980) (" the vehicle was in a place and at a time when it was necessary to

remove it for both reasons of safety and security.").

JMK WIL EW

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State Of Louisiana v. Detrenta Lee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-louisiana-v-detrenta-lee-lactapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack