State of Louisiana v. Jaleel Green

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2024-K-0169

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL JALEEL GREEN * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 559-683, SECTION “DIVISION G” Judge Nandi Campbell, ****** Chief Judge Terri F. Love ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rachael D. Johnson)

LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

Jason R. Williams District Attorney Brad Scott Assistant District Attorney, Chief of Appeals Patrick Doell Assistant District Attorney, Trial Counsel Patricia Amos Assistant District Attorney Orleans Parish 619 South White Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR, STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mary Ella W. Simmons Orleans Public Defenders 2601 Tulane Avenue, Seventh Floor New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, JALEEL GREEN

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APRIL 16, 2024 TFL

RDJ

Relator, the State of Louisiana seeks review of the trial court’s February 23,

2024 ruling, which granted defendant’s, Jaleel Green, Motion to Suppress

Statements and Evidence seized. Upon review, we find the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by suppressing the evidence seized from Mr. Green and finding

no probable cause. The State failed to demonstrate the evidence should be

admitted through an exception to the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, the State’s

application for supervisory review is granted, but relief is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed:

• NOPD received a call with a description of someone allegedly

selling narcotics and possibly armed.

• NOPD arrived on scene and witnessed Mr. Green, allegedly

matching the description.

• NOPD informed Mr. Green that he matched the description

given of someone allegedly selling narcotics.

1 • After informing Mr. Green of this, an NOPD officer asked if he

was armed and if he had a concealed carry permit.

• Mr. Green replied that he was armed and did not have a

concealed carry permit with him.

• Mr. Green was placed under arrest and searched. Once

Mirandized, he invoked his right to remain silent.

TRIAL COURT

Mr. Green filed a Motion to Suppress his statements, as well as the evidence

seized, which the trial court granted. The trial court found:

First, Mr. Green was detained when officers stopped him outside of the apartment building, informed him that he matched the description of a person reported to be selling drugs, and asked him incriminating questions about whether he was armed. Therefore, a reasonable person “would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint of freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.” Because these custodial questions occurred before Mr. Green was Mirandized, the statements are inadmissible. Furthermore, the evidence is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. Second, without the statements and evidence unconstitutionally obtained from Mr. Green, this court makes a finding of no probable cause. (internal citations omitted).

SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

The State seeks to have the trial court’s ruling partially reversed.

Specifically, the State contends the trial court erred by suppressing the evidence

seized and finding no probable cause. The State does not seek review of the trial

court’s suppression of Mr. Green’s statements, as “the State believes the trial court

reached the correct result and sees no reason to seek review of that portion of the

ruling.”

2 A trial court’s ruling on the suppression of evidence is highly discretionary.

State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So. 3d 577, 581. The ruling “is

afforded great weight and will not be set aside unless there is an abuse of that

discretion.” Id.

Upon review, we find no merit to the State’s contention that even though the

statements were correctly suppressed, the evidence was legally seized. The trial

court held that once NOPD officers stopped Mr. Green and informed him that he

matched the description of a subject suspected of dealing drugs and being armed,

Mr. Green should have been Mirandized. The State seems to concede this point, as

it did not seek review of the suppression of Mr. Green’s statements. Everything

occurring after this moment was tainted.

The State asserts that the evidence should not be suppressed because the

NOPD was entitled to conduct a La. C.Cr.P. art. 215.1, “Terry stop” on Mr. Green,

which would have revealed the firearm. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct.

1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). However, the mere concealment of a firearm, in and

of itself, is not an offense subject to an arrest. Thus, we find the State failed to

meet their burden of demonstrating that the evidence would have been discovered

inevitably or by an independent source. See State v. Davis, 23-0210, pp. 16-17

(La. App. 4 Cir. 5/31/23), 368 So. 3d 679, 692. Therefore, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by suppressing the evidence seized and finding no probable

cause.

DECREE

For the above-mentioned reasons, the application for supervisory review

filed by the State is granted, but relief is denied.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED