State v. Cager
This text of 46 So. 3d 191 (State v. Cager) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Granted. The court of appeal’s ruling is vacated and the trial court’s ruling, finding probable cause to charge defendants, is reinstated. The recent amendment of R.S. 14:402(E)(7), to clarify that cellular teler phone chargers as well as cellular telephones fall under the proscription of “any telecommunications equipment” as contraband in any municipal or parish prison or jail does not, by negative implication, mean that cell phone chargers did not formerly belong in the class of prohibited telecommunications equipment, “including but not limited to cellular phones ...” 2004 La. Acts 602 (adding La. R.S. 14:402(E)(7)). Giving the term “telecommunications equipment” the “fair import of [its] words, taken in their usual sense in connection with the content, and with reference to the purpose of the provision,” La. R.S. 14:3, telecommunications equipment may be fairly said to encompass a device needed to charge a cell phone for continued operation and use, and it makes no difference under La. R.S. 14:402(E)(7) “whether or not such equipment may be intended for use in planning or aiding an escape or attempt to escape from any institution.” 1
REVERSED; TRIAL COURT RULING REINSTATED.
. All parties concede the court of appeal committed legal error when it found that La. R.S. 14:402(E)(7) required evidence to show that the equipment was intended to be used in an escape. La. R.S. 14:402(E)(7) specifically provides otherwise.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 So. 3d 191, 2010 La. LEXIS 2237, 2010 WL 4027767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cager-la-2010.