State Of Louisiana v. Van Hopkins

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA , NO. 2026 KW 0013 VERSUS

VAN HOPKINS JANUARY 09, 2026 In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,

20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, No. 22-WFLN-237.

BEFORE : MILLER, EDWARDS, AND FIELDS, JJ. WRIT DENIED.

SMM WEF

Edwards, J., dissents and would grant the writ and reverse the district court’s ruling denying expert testimony by Mr. Dennis in the field of electronic monitoring systems. I find merit in the State’s contention that the lower court abused its discretion. Mr. Dennis has been working extensively with electronic ankle monitoring for eleven years. At the time of the hearing, he was the director of the Assured Supervision Accountability Program which supervises and monitors offenders released by court order or on bond through bail agents, throughout Louisiana; a position he’s held since 2014. His company uses electronic monitoring to track the movements of individuals to ensure they follow court orders or bond conditions and monitors an average of 400 offenders at any given time. During his testimony, Mr. Dennis provided details regarding the standards and methodology used by his own company in accordance with his own experience and knowledge. Thus, I find the State met its burden of showing Mr. Dennis could assist the trier of fact to understand evidence or determine a fact at issue and that his practices were the product of reliable principles and methods and based upon sufficient facts and data. See La. Code of Evid. art. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Fd.2d 469 (1993).

“SOURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Shh aA a Nee, PUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT

i 77

OE