State Of Louisiana v. Devin Whitaker

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State Of Louisiana v. Devin Whitaker

DecidedOctober 5, 2021

Docket2021KW0839

StatusUnknown

This text of State Of Louisiana v. Devin Whitaker (State Of Louisiana v. Devin Whitaker) 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. Devin Whitaker, (La. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 0839

VERSUS

DEVIN C. WHITAKER OCTOBER 05, 2021

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for writs, supervisory 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, Nos. 20-- WFLN- 592, 20- WMSD- 593, 594.

BEFORE: WELCH, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT DENIED IN PART; WRIT GRANTED IN PART. There was no

clear abuse of discretion or error in the granting of the motion to suppress the marijuana seized from the pocket of the defendant. See State v. James, 99- 3304 ( La. 12/ 8/ 00), 795 So. 2d 1146, 1150 ( per curiam) (" the officer exceeded the scope of a

valid Terry stop when he removed the canister from [ the defendant' s] pocket and began manipulating it to determine its contents. At that point, the officer had embarked on ` the sort of that evidentiary search Terry expressly refused to authorize...."') ( quoting, Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U. S. 366, 378, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2139, 124 L. Ed. 2d 334 ( 1993)). Further, the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to the marijuana seized from the pocket of the defendant. See State v. Brock, 2015- 2165 ( La. 2/ 24/ 17), 210 So. 3d 276, 277 n. 1 ( per

curiam) ("[ a] lthough, as the court of appeal reasoned, it is conceivable that an exception to the warrant requirement could

apply in cases involving pharmacy records, the burden was on the S] tate to prove that an exception applied to the initial warrantless search. See La. [ Code Crim. P. art.] 703( D). The S] tate failed to present such evidence at the suppression any hearing and a reopened evidentiary hearing is unwarranted."). However, Corporal Nettles testified the defendant consented to a search of his vehicle after the frisk. The trial court abused

its discretion in suppressing the drug paraphernalia and

methamphetamine found pursuant to the consent search.

JEW AHP

Theriot, J., dissents in part and would deny the writ in its entirety.

DEPUTY LERK 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 0839

VERSUS

DEVIN C. WHITAKER OCTOBER 05, 2021

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for writs, supervisory 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, Nos. 20-- WFLN- 592, 20- WMSD- 593, 594.

BEFORE: WELCH, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT DENIED IN PART; WRIT GRANTED IN PART. There was no

clear abuse of discretion or error in the granting of the motion to suppress the marijuana seized from the pocket of the defendant. See State v. James, 99- 3304 ( La. 12/ 8/ 00), 795 So. 2d 1146, 1150 ( per curiam) (" the officer exceeded the scope of a

valid Terry stop when he removed the canister from [ the defendant' s] pocket and began manipulating it to determine its contents. At that point, the officer had embarked on ` the sort of that evidentiary search Terry expressly refused to authorize...."') ( quoting, Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U. S. 366, 378, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2139, 124 L. Ed. 2d 334 ( 1993)). Further, the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to the marijuana seized from the pocket of the defendant. See State v. Brock, 2015- 2165 ( La. 2/ 24/ 17), 210 So. 3d 276, 277 n. 1 ( per

curiam) ("[ a] lthough, as the court of appeal reasoned, it is conceivable that an exception to the warrant requirement could

apply in cases involving pharmacy records, the burden was on the S] tate to prove that an exception applied to the initial warrantless search. See La. [ Code Crim. P. art.] 703( D). The S] tate failed to present such evidence at the suppression any hearing and a reopened evidentiary hearing is unwarranted."). However, Corporal Nettles testified the defendant consented to a search of his vehicle after the frisk. The trial court abused

its discretion in suppressing the drug paraphernalia and

methamphetamine found pursuant to the consent search.

JEW AHP

Theriot, J., dissents in part and would deny the writ in its entirety.

DEPUTY LERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State Of Louisiana v. Devin Whitaker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-louisiana-v-devin-whitaker-lactapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack