STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2025-K-0403
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL SERENA OLVARRIETA AND * ALBERT MARTIN FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 561-452, SECTION “B” Honorable Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Judge ****** Judge Paula A. Brown ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Paula A. Brown)
JASON R. WILLIAMS District Attorney Parish of Orleans BRAD SCOTT Chief of Appeals Parish of Orleans PETER J. VESICH Assistant District Attorney Parish of Orleans 619 S. White St., New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR
John T. Fuller Devin C. Jones Jerome W. Matthews, Jr. John T. Fuller & Associates, L.L.C. 909 Poydras St. - Ste 2270 New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ALBERT MARTIN Stephen M. Smith 1425 N Broad Street, Suite 201 New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT SERENA OLVIARRETA
WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED
AUGUST 08, 2025 PAB DLD RML
Relator, State of Louisiana (the “State”), seeks supervisory review of the
district court’s May 8, 2025 judgment, which granted, in part, a motion to suppress
physical evidence collected without a warrant, filed on behalf of Respondents,
Serena Olvarrieta (“Olvarrieta”) and Albert Martin (“Martin”) (collectively
“Defendants”). Ruling from the bench, the district court found that, although the
traffic stop was constitutional, the subsequent seizure of Oxycodone found in a pill
bottle was violative of the Fourth Amendment because probable cause did not exist
to search the area where it was found. For the reasons that follow, we grant
Relator’s writ and reverse the district court’s judgment suppressing the
Oxycodone.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 5, 2024, the State filed a bill of information against Defendants,
charging them each with one count of possession with intent to distribute
Oxycodone in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1)(a), and charging Martin
individually with possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon in
violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, and possession of a firearm while also possessing a
1 controlled dangerous substance in violation of La. R.S. 14:95(E). The pertinent
facts leading to the arrest are as follows:
On November 14, 2023, New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”)
Detective Jack Cockerham (“Det. Cockerham”) was conducting surveillance
through the NOPD’s real time crime camera (“RTCC”). Through the RTCC, Det.
Cockerham saw a black GMC pick-up truck involved in what he believed to be a
drug transaction. He then witnessed the same vehicle commit two separate traffic
violations by running two red lights. Det. Cockerham contacted a nearby patrol
officer, Officer Cody O’Dell (“Off. O’Dell”) and instructed him to conduct a
traffic stop on the vehicle.
After stopping the vehicle, Off. O’Dell approached it and advised the driver
to roll down all four windows of the vehicle. Immediately, a cloud of smoke
emanated from the vehicle and there was a strong odor of marijuana. Off. O’Dell
had the driver, Martin, and his passenger, Olvarrieta, step out the vehicle and
advised them of the traffic violations and odor of marijuana. In plain view, Off.
O’Dell observed a cigar containing marijuana on the passenger seat and a digital
scale on the driver’s side floorboard. A second NOPD officer, Officer Douglas
Boudreaux (“Off. Boudreaux”), who was standing on the passenger side of the
vehicle as Olvarrieta exited, observed a pill bottle with an obliterated label
containing a variety of pills in the center console cupholder. Based on those
observations, along with the smell of marijuana, the officers conducted a search of
the vehicle. From this search the officers discovered: bullets in the driver’s side
door; a digital scale on the driver’s side floorboard; a package of marijuana in the
center console area; a package of marijuana in the pocket of the jacket laying on
the passenger seat; $11,200.00 dollars in cash; a Taurus revolver pistol on the rear
2 floorboard; and a purse containing blister packs of Tapentadol pills. A third NOPD
officer, Officer David DeSalvo, mirandized Defendants and they were arrested on
the scene.
Defendants separately filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and
statements, which came for a probable cause hearing on January 30, 2025. Both
Offs. O’Dell and Boudreaux testified at the hearing. Following, the district court
found that the State did not meet its burden of proof establishing probable cause
for any of the evidence that was out of plain view. Specifically, the district court
suppressed the Oxycodone found in the pill bottle, but admitted all other evidence.
This timely-filed writ followed.
APPLICABLE LAW
“[A] district court has ‘great discretion when ruling on a motion to
suppress[,]’ and the district court’s ruling ‘will not be disturbed absent an abuse of
that discretion.’” State v. Willis, 22-0452, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/22), 348 So.3d
167, 172 (quoting State v. Polkey, 20-0482, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/25/20), 310
So.3d 605, 608) (second alteration in original). “A [district] court’s ruling on a
motion to suppress . . . is entitled to great weight, because the [district] court has
the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their
testimony.” Id. 22-0452, p. 7, 348 So.3d at 172 (quoting State ex rel. J.S., 08-
1401, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/18/09), 6 So.3d 904, 908) (alterations in original).
“However, a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Id.
(citing Polkey, 20-0482, p. 4, 310 So.3d at 608). “Accordingly, an ‘appellate court
reviews the underlying facts [under] an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews
conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo.’” Id. “If the facts are not in
3 dispute, then an appellate court ‘must consider whether the trial court came to the
proper legal determination under the undisputed facts.’” Id. (citations omitted).
“For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an
objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity occurred or is
about to occur, before stopping the vehicle.” State v. Johnson, 21-0239, p. 6 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 2021), 334 So.3d 805, 809 (quoting State v. Hunt, 09-1589, pp. 8-9
(La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 746, 753. Once there is probable cause to search the
vehicle, every part of the car can be searched “as thoroughly as a magistrate could
authorize.” Id. 21-0239, p. 15, 334 So.3d at 814. In Johnson, after conducting a
lawful traffic stop, the officer smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the
vehicle. 21-0239 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021), 334 So.3d 805. The officer then searched
the defendant’s purse in which Tramadol pills were found. The defendant
contended that the search of the purse was beyond the lawful scope and filed a
motion to suppress evidence. This Court held that once the police officer smelled
the odor of marijuana, he had probable cause to search every part of the vehicle as
well as “its contents that might conceal evidence of illegal drug activity, including
[the defendant’s] purse.” Id., 21-0239, p. 8, 334 So. 3d 805 at 810. The Johnson
Court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and
found that the search was lawful. Id., 21-0239, p. 16, 334 So. 3d 815.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2025-K-0403
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL SERENA OLVARRIETA AND * ALBERT MARTIN FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 561-452, SECTION “B” Honorable Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Judge ****** Judge Paula A. Brown ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Paula A. Brown)
JASON R. WILLIAMS District Attorney Parish of Orleans BRAD SCOTT Chief of Appeals Parish of Orleans PETER J. VESICH Assistant District Attorney Parish of Orleans 619 S. White St., New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR
John T. Fuller Devin C. Jones Jerome W. Matthews, Jr. John T. Fuller & Associates, L.L.C. 909 Poydras St. - Ste 2270 New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ALBERT MARTIN Stephen M. Smith 1425 N Broad Street, Suite 201 New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT SERENA OLVIARRETA
WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED
AUGUST 08, 2025 PAB DLD RML
Relator, State of Louisiana (the “State”), seeks supervisory review of the
district court’s May 8, 2025 judgment, which granted, in part, a motion to suppress
physical evidence collected without a warrant, filed on behalf of Respondents,
Serena Olvarrieta (“Olvarrieta”) and Albert Martin (“Martin”) (collectively
“Defendants”). Ruling from the bench, the district court found that, although the
traffic stop was constitutional, the subsequent seizure of Oxycodone found in a pill
bottle was violative of the Fourth Amendment because probable cause did not exist
to search the area where it was found. For the reasons that follow, we grant
Relator’s writ and reverse the district court’s judgment suppressing the
Oxycodone.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 5, 2024, the State filed a bill of information against Defendants,
charging them each with one count of possession with intent to distribute
Oxycodone in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1)(a), and charging Martin
individually with possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon in
violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, and possession of a firearm while also possessing a
1 controlled dangerous substance in violation of La. R.S. 14:95(E). The pertinent
facts leading to the arrest are as follows:
On November 14, 2023, New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”)
Detective Jack Cockerham (“Det. Cockerham”) was conducting surveillance
through the NOPD’s real time crime camera (“RTCC”). Through the RTCC, Det.
Cockerham saw a black GMC pick-up truck involved in what he believed to be a
drug transaction. He then witnessed the same vehicle commit two separate traffic
violations by running two red lights. Det. Cockerham contacted a nearby patrol
officer, Officer Cody O’Dell (“Off. O’Dell”) and instructed him to conduct a
traffic stop on the vehicle.
After stopping the vehicle, Off. O’Dell approached it and advised the driver
to roll down all four windows of the vehicle. Immediately, a cloud of smoke
emanated from the vehicle and there was a strong odor of marijuana. Off. O’Dell
had the driver, Martin, and his passenger, Olvarrieta, step out the vehicle and
advised them of the traffic violations and odor of marijuana. In plain view, Off.
O’Dell observed a cigar containing marijuana on the passenger seat and a digital
scale on the driver’s side floorboard. A second NOPD officer, Officer Douglas
Boudreaux (“Off. Boudreaux”), who was standing on the passenger side of the
vehicle as Olvarrieta exited, observed a pill bottle with an obliterated label
containing a variety of pills in the center console cupholder. Based on those
observations, along with the smell of marijuana, the officers conducted a search of
the vehicle. From this search the officers discovered: bullets in the driver’s side
door; a digital scale on the driver’s side floorboard; a package of marijuana in the
center console area; a package of marijuana in the pocket of the jacket laying on
the passenger seat; $11,200.00 dollars in cash; a Taurus revolver pistol on the rear
2 floorboard; and a purse containing blister packs of Tapentadol pills. A third NOPD
officer, Officer David DeSalvo, mirandized Defendants and they were arrested on
the scene.
Defendants separately filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and
statements, which came for a probable cause hearing on January 30, 2025. Both
Offs. O’Dell and Boudreaux testified at the hearing. Following, the district court
found that the State did not meet its burden of proof establishing probable cause
for any of the evidence that was out of plain view. Specifically, the district court
suppressed the Oxycodone found in the pill bottle, but admitted all other evidence.
This timely-filed writ followed.
APPLICABLE LAW
“[A] district court has ‘great discretion when ruling on a motion to
suppress[,]’ and the district court’s ruling ‘will not be disturbed absent an abuse of
that discretion.’” State v. Willis, 22-0452, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/22), 348 So.3d
167, 172 (quoting State v. Polkey, 20-0482, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/25/20), 310
So.3d 605, 608) (second alteration in original). “A [district] court’s ruling on a
motion to suppress . . . is entitled to great weight, because the [district] court has
the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their
testimony.” Id. 22-0452, p. 7, 348 So.3d at 172 (quoting State ex rel. J.S., 08-
1401, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/18/09), 6 So.3d 904, 908) (alterations in original).
“However, a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Id.
(citing Polkey, 20-0482, p. 4, 310 So.3d at 608). “Accordingly, an ‘appellate court
reviews the underlying facts [under] an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews
conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo.’” Id. “If the facts are not in
3 dispute, then an appellate court ‘must consider whether the trial court came to the
proper legal determination under the undisputed facts.’” Id. (citations omitted).
“For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an
objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity occurred or is
about to occur, before stopping the vehicle.” State v. Johnson, 21-0239, p. 6 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 2021), 334 So.3d 805, 809 (quoting State v. Hunt, 09-1589, pp. 8-9
(La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 746, 753. Once there is probable cause to search the
vehicle, every part of the car can be searched “as thoroughly as a magistrate could
authorize.” Id. 21-0239, p. 15, 334 So.3d at 814. In Johnson, after conducting a
lawful traffic stop, the officer smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the
vehicle. 21-0239 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021), 334 So.3d 805. The officer then searched
the defendant’s purse in which Tramadol pills were found. The defendant
contended that the search of the purse was beyond the lawful scope and filed a
motion to suppress evidence. This Court held that once the police officer smelled
the odor of marijuana, he had probable cause to search every part of the vehicle as
well as “its contents that might conceal evidence of illegal drug activity, including
[the defendant’s] purse.” Id., 21-0239, p. 8, 334 So. 3d 805 at 810. The Johnson
Court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and
found that the search was lawful. Id., 21-0239, p. 16, 334 So. 3d 815.
Similarly, this Court recently addressed a nearly analogous scenario in State
v. Torregano, 24-0610 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/17/24) 408 So.3d 231, which involved
the lawfully initiated investigatory stop of a suspected stolen vehicle with five
occupants. During that stop, the trooper smelled the strong odor of marijuana
coming from the car. When the trooper smelled the strong odor of marijuana
coming from the car and saw an AR-style rifle in plain view, he and other troopers
4 detained all occupants and began to search the car. The search included backpacks
located in the car which were found to contain contraband. This Court held that
the district court erred when it suppressed the contents of the backpacks because
the troopers in Torregano had established probable cause to search the vehicle as
thoroughly as if they had obtained a search warrant from a magistrate judge.
In the instant case, there is no dispute that Off. O’Dell legitimately stopped
the vehicle occupied by Defendants for traffic violations. When Martin complied
with Officer O’Dell’s directions to roll down the windows, a cloud of smoke
emanated from the driver’s side window. A review of the bodycam footage
reflects that after officers removed Defendants from the vehicle and administered
Miranda warnings, they inquired about the contents of the pill bottle, and Martin
admitted that it contained Oxycodone and Amoxicillin. The officers then
conducted a search of the vehicle, including the contents of the pill bottle.
Applying this Court’s reasoning in Johnson and Torregano to the facts of the case
before us, we conclude the search was lawful and that the district court erred when
it granted the motion to suppress the Oxycodone.
DECREE
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Relator’s writ is granted and
the district court’s judgment suppressing of the Oxycodone is reversed.
WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED