State of Louisiana v. Floyd Falkins

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 28, 2023
• Docket: 2023-K-0313
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-K-0313

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL FLOYD FALKINS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 555-516, SECTION “DIVISION L” Judge Angel Harris, ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Rachael D. Johnson)

Jason R. Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY Brad Scott CHIEF OF APPEALS 619 South White Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR/STATE OF LOUISIANA

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED

JUNE 28, 2023 DLD Relator, State of Louisiana, seeks review of the trial court’s April 20, 2023 RLB RDJ ruling granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence. For the foregoing

reasons, we grant Relator’s writ.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The matter originated from a 911 call wherein the caller provided a

description of a suspect threatening employees and likely carrying a firearm at a

convenience store/gas station. Police arrived at the scene and attempted to detain

Defendant, as he met the description provided in the 911 call. Defendant forcibly

resisted and four (4) officers were required to detain and handcuff Defendant.

During the struggle, and prior to handcuffing Defendant, the officers removed a

cross-body bag from Defendant. Body-camera footage shows Defendant

attempting to retrieve something from the bag prior to officers gaining possession.

As the officers extracted the bag from Defendant’s possession, an officer is heard

stating “I have the gun,” although officers did not open the bag and view the

firearm until after Defendant had been cuffed and the bag had been taken out of his

reach.

1 On Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the trial court found that the

gun had been impermissibly seized pursuant to an illegal search of Defendant’s

bag. As such, the trial court granted Defendant’s Motion and excluded the weapon

as a “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The State timely filed a writ to this Court for

review of this ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A “district court’s findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed

under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s ultimate determination of

Fourth Amendment reasonableness is reviewed de novo.” State v. Anderson, 2006-

1031, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/17/07), 949 So. 2d 544, 546 (quoting State v. Pham,

2001-2199, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218). “Accordingly, on

mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts

on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions to be drawn from those

facts de novo.” Id.

DISCUSSION

In suppressing the evidence, the trial court found the original detention of

the Defendant was an arrest and the evidence was impermissibly seized pursuant to

an arrest for which the officers had no probable cause. We feel the trial court’s

ruling was clearly erroneous. There was probable cause for the detention and

subsequent arrest of the defendant. The call to 911 indicated the defendant was

acting unruly as he had done on a previous occasion and claimed that he had a

weapon. Upon approaching defendant, the officers experienced the defendant

becoming defensive and combative and therefore sought to handcuff him for

protective reasons. At this point the defendant fought off the handcuffs and bit one

of the officers. A search incident to defendant’s arrest revealed the gun.

2 The initial detention of the Defendant was based upon a reasonable

suspicion, and the use of handcuffs was justified to protect the officers and

bystanders. Further, the detention of the Defendant and use of handcuffs was

proper. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; 88 S.Ct. 1868; 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). In

accordance with Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431; 104 S.Ct. 2501; 81 L.Ed.2d 377

(1984), the evidence is admissible under the doctrine of inevitable discovery, as it

would have been found after his arrest and booking.

For these reasons, we reverse the ruling of the trial court.

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED.