State v. Foss

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Foss

226 So. 3d 1115, 2017 WL 4641351

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 16, 2017

DocketNo. 2017-KK-0744

StatusPublished

This text of 226 So. 3d 1115 (State v. Foss) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Foss, 226 So. 3d 1115, 2017 WL 4641351 (La. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF ST- TAMMANY

PER CURIAM:

| ]Writ granted. The parties do not dispute' that the officer was justified in approaching defendant for questioning and conducting a limited search of his outer clothing for a weapon, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and the trial court correctly determined that the contraband—which was seized from the inside of a cigarette pack recoveréd during the Terry pat down—is not admissible pursuant to the “plain feel” exception to the warrant requirement. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2137, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) (“If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons ....”). The district court, however, prematurely ruled before hearing testimony by the defense witness or considering the State’s argument that the evidence is admissible under the “plain smell” exception. As a result, it is difficult to determine from the record whether the “plain smell” exception, which was invoked by the court of appeal, should be applied. See State v. Gray, 13-1326 (La. 6/28/13), 122 So.3d 531; State v. Ingram, 14-0896 (La. 10/10/14), 157 So.3d 1101. Therefore, mindful of the district court’s role in assessing credibility at a suppression hearing, see State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938, 943 (La. 1984), we grant the- application for the limited purpose of remanding the matter to the district court to conduct-a new hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence and to issue a ruling on defendant’s motion thereafter.

WEIMER, J., would deny. GUIDRY, J., would deny. CLARK, J., would deny.

WEIMER, J.

: hi would deny the writ.

| T GUIDRY, J., would deny.

JjCLARK, J., would deny.

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

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF ST- TAMMANY

PER CURIAM:

| ]Writ granted. The parties do not dispute' that the officer was justified in approaching defendant for questioning and conducting a limited search of his outer clothing for a weapon, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and the trial court correctly determined that the contraband—which was seized from the inside of a cigarette pack recoveréd during the Terry pat down—is not admissible pursuant to the “plain feel” exception to the warrant requirement. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2137, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) (“If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons ....”). The district court, however, prematurely ruled before hearing testimony by the defense witness or considering the State’s argument that the evidence is admissible under the “plain smell” exception. As a result, it is difficult to determine from the record whether the “plain smell” exception, which was invoked by the court of appeal, should be applied. See State v. Gray, 13-1326 (La. 6/28/13), 122 So.3d 531; State v. Ingram, 14-0896 (La. 10/10/14), 157 So.3d 1101. Therefore, mindful of the district court’s role in assessing credibility at a suppression hearing, see State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938, 943 (La. 1984), we grant the- application for the limited purpose of remanding the matter to the district court to conduct-a new hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence and to issue a ruling on defendant’s motion thereafter.

WEIMER, J., would deny. GUIDRY, J., would deny. CLARK, J., would deny.

WEIMER, J.

: hi would deny the writ.

| T GUIDRY, J., would deny.

JjCLARK, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 3d 1115, 2017 WL 4641351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foss-la-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack