State v. Dauzart

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dauzart

52 So. 3d 863, 2011 La. LEXIS 1, 2011 WL 62838

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided January 3, 2011·No. No. 2010-KK-2867·Published

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. F, No. 491-428; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1749.

Writ granted. We find the trial court abused its discretion in finding no probable cause to arrest the accused for possession of the firearm as a convicted felon. A reasonable officer could conclude the accused had dominion and control over the [864] firearm that was in plain view and within his reach inside the vehicle. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371-372, 124 S.Ct. 795, 800-801, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (Where cocaine was discovered behind the' back-seat armrest and accessible to all three occupants, probable cause existed to arrest the front-seat passenger.) Further, the ruling of the trial court granting the motions to suppress is vacated. The admissibility of evidence is dependent upon the circumstances under which it was obtained, not upon whether there was probable cause to believe the accused had committed a crime. See State v. Bradford, 98-1428, p. 4 (La. Ct.App. 4 Cir. 12/9/98), 729 So.2d 1049, 1051. Case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would deny the application.

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

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. F, No. 491-428; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1749.

Writ granted. We find the trial court abused its discretion in finding no probable cause to arrest the accused for possession of the firearm as a convicted felon. A reasonable officer could conclude the accused had dominion and control over the [864] firearm that was in plain view and within his reach inside the vehicle. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371-372, 124 S.Ct. 795, 800-801, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (Where cocaine was discovered behind the' back-seat armrest and accessible to all three occupants, probable cause existed to arrest the front-seat passenger.) Further, the ruling of the trial court granting the motions to suppress is vacated. The admissibility of evidence is dependent upon the circumstances under which it was obtained, not upon whether there was probable cause to believe the accused had committed a crime. See State v. Bradford, 98-1428, p. 4 (La. Ct.App. 4 Cir. 12/9/98), 729 So.2d 1049, 1051. Case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would deny the application.

State v. Dauzart, 52 So. 3d 863, 2011 La. LEXIS 1, 2011 WL 62838 (La. 2011).

Pincite

52 So. 3d 863 (State v. Dauzart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related