State v. Coy

646 So. 2d 1164, 94 La.App. 5 Cir. 329, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 3159, 1994 WL 643743
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 17, 1994
DocketNo. 94-K-329
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 646 So. 2d 1164 (State v. Coy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Coy, 646 So. 2d 1164, 94 La.App. 5 Cir. 329, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 3159, 1994 WL 643743 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

I iPER CURIAM.

This case concerns the validity of a police affidavit which caused two search warrants to issue. The trial judge found no probable cause and suppressed seized evidence. On appeal to this Court, the district court judgment was reversed. The three defendants then sought supervisory relief from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which remanded to this Court for briefing, oral arguments and an opinion, 640 So.2d 1327, 640 So.2d 1328.

On reconsideration, we remain of the opinion that the affidavit contained sufficient cause for issuance of the warrants; accordingly, the judgment granting the motion to suppress is set aside and we again remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The two-page affidavit, signed on December 13, 1993, is attached to and made part of this opinion.

Defendants argue that this affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render its existence entirely unreasonable. This and three other instances when search warrants must be declared invalid are listed in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 at page 923,104 S.Ct. 3405 at pages 3420-21, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).

The affidavit here, however, did give the magistrate a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, considering the totality of stated 12circumstances discussed in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), rehearing denied at 463 U.S. 1237, 104 S.Ct. 33, 77 L.Ed.2d 1453 (1983). One of the defendants, Guadalupe Coy, identified as a Spanish male, had arrived from Houston, Texas, which is close to Mexico and is a known documented site for distribution of narcotics. Coy appeared “quite confused” and then made a telephone call, which a police officer overheard in part. This eventually led police to Room 156 at the Travel Lodge, where further conversations with all three defendants took place. The defendants gave seriously conflicting statements which are spelled out in the affidavit. A criminal history check showed that two of the three defendants had criminal backgrounds involving illegal drugs.

Everything the police did in this case was legal and in apparent good faith. When advised by defendants that permission to search was being withdrawn, the officers immediately stopped and sought search warrants. These officers were not dishonest or reckless but rather conducted a fair, reasonable investigation from the time of the overheard telephone conversation at the airport to the suspicious conduct and conflicting statements at the motel. The affidavit did reasonably indicate that a crime was being committed and that contraband could be found in the motel room and in the nylon bag carried by one of the defendants (Juvetino Munoz) with a criminal history.

The task of a reviewing court in evaluating a search warrant affidavit is simply to insure that the judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. A magistrate’s determination of probable cause should be accorded great deference. See State v. Hamilton, 572 So.2d 269 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990), writs denied at 578 So.2d 929 (La.1991). In doubtful cases, the preference of the appellate court should be to uphold Isvalidity so as to encourage law enforcement officials to submit evidence to a judicial officer before acting. State v. Mayes, 532 So.2d 331 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988), writs denied at 560 So.2d 27 (La.1990).

Here, we find fairly clear not doubtful probable cause in the affidavit.

DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED; REMANDED.

[1166]*1166IN THE. 24th Judicial _COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON STATE OF LOUISIANA JPSO ITEM #

APPLICATION FOR AND SWORN PROOF OF PROBARLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT HEREIN Wth Judlcial

PERSONALLY CAME ANO APPEARED BEFORE ME, ihs undesigned Judge of the Court, Pariih of Jeflerion, Slat* of Louisiana,_n_Sat. .0» Simone.-- - — of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, who» upon being duly by me sworn, deposed) and sayfs):

THAT A SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD BE ISSUED FOR THE SEARCH OF _ JrayQl F.nrJg» Hotel RaonJL 156, located ..at .2240 Veterana Hwy,. Kenner#. Le. m. -**uLane-aqua-and~pluk-ayJU»tt-.bag .wltU_tha..wocda lotttnatitmaLSplrlJLJJtl.B*me. —

FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

On 12/13/93» Sgt, G. Simone ami DEA S/A Ü. Cibbtr, who are aselgnud to the Haw Orleans International Airport Narcotice Detail, report of conducting a surveillance of inbound Southwest airlines fllght^/'/S'from Houston, Tx. The officers monitor this flight on a regular basis due to the face that it has passengers connecting from cities close to the Mexican border which Is a major distribution point for narcotics and also that Houston, Tx is also a known documented location .for the distribution of narcotics. As the passengers proceeded to deplane the aircraft the officers attention was drawn to a Spanish male subject later Identified as Guadalupe R« Coy, The officers noted that Coy appeared to be quite confused as he Just stood around the gate area and walked back and forth ;or a couple of seconds. Then with out any further hesitation he proceeded directly to the lobby of the airport and placed a phone call. Coy than waited for a moment and then asked t be connected to room 156, at which time ha addreseed someone as Rick. After a brief conversation which Sgt. Simona was unable to hear, Coy hung up the phone and proceeded to the baggage claim area where he picked up one bag and then proceeded to the cab stand. At this time Sgt, Simona and S/A Gibbs approached Coy, identified themselves as police officers and asked to speak with him for moment. Coy'was completely cooperative and itated yes. He was then asked for his airline- ticket which showed travel from San- Antonio to Hew Or Leans with no return trip, lit was than naked far identification which he produced in his correct name. At this time both documents were returned to him and the officers asked him about the purpose of his trip to Hew Orleans* Initially Coy claimed that he was here on a pleasure trip. Sgt. Simone then naked him if he had any plana to meet with someone while he was here and Coy stated that he was meeting with a friend of his ñamad Rick. Coy was unable to provide the officers with ftickfs last name, but did state that he bed met Rick in San Anton Sgt. Simone then «eked Coy were he was suppose to meet with Rick, and he stated that it was at some hotel downtown, but that he wasn’t aura which one. At this .pointSgt. Simone quesclo Coy about the laat time he had spoke with Rick and when this pleasure trip had been planned Coy related that he hadn’t spoke to Rick In a few Weeks and that was when the Arrangements had been made. Coy never would acknowledge that he had spoken to Rick several minutes before the officers approached him. Coy appeared to be extremely vague with his answers and unsure of the reason he was in New Orleans, because he changed his story about meeting 'lick for pleasure to come meet with in ordjr to look for a Job. At this point the officers r¿quustod and received verbal consent from Coy to search his bag and person. This search revealed no aignes of contraband, but Sgt. Simone located a red piece of paper with, Travel Lodge room 156 on same with a phone number of 5064697341 also written on it. Sgt.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Fruge
95 So. 3d 1112 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
State v. Guerrero
688 So. 2d 119 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
646 So. 2d 1164, 94 La.App. 5 Cir. 329, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 3159, 1994 WL 643743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coy-lactapp-1994.