State v. Kirk

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Kirk

269 So. 3d 690

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 6, 2019

DocketNo. 2019-KK-497

StatusPublished

This text of 269 So. 3d 690 (State v. Kirk) 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. Kirk, 269 So. 3d 690 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

GENOVESE, J., would grant.

Hughes, J., dissents and would grant the writ.

While the police officers had reasonable suspicion to approach defendant after he was identified by his cousin as likely possessing drugs, the state fails in its burden to show defendant was properly Mirandized.

After defendant was separated from other bus customers and handcuffed, the police specifically asked defendant if he had any drugs on him, to which defendant responded affirmatively. These were not preliminary questions, but were inculpatory, as defendant had already specifically been pointed out as likely to have drugs on him.

When asked if defendant was Mirandized before or after the inculpatory question was asked, the officer who gave the warning replied, "I'm not sure." As noted by the trial court, "That's kind of a biggy."

Because the state has failed to carry its burden under Miranda, the trial court's ruling suppressing defendant's statement and evidence derived therefrom should be reinstated.

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

GENOVESE, J., would grant.

Hughes, J., dissents and would grant the writ.

While the police officers had reasonable suspicion to approach defendant after he was identified by his cousin as likely possessing drugs, the state fails in its burden to show defendant was properly Mirandized.

After defendant was separated from other bus customers and handcuffed, the police specifically asked defendant if he had any drugs on him, to which defendant responded affirmatively. These were not preliminary questions, but were inculpatory, as defendant had already specifically been pointed out as likely to have drugs on him.

When asked if defendant was Mirandized before or after the inculpatory question was asked, the officer who gave the warning replied, "I'm not sure." As noted by the trial court, "That's kind of a biggy."

Because the state has failed to carry its burden under Miranda, the trial court's ruling suppressing defendant's statement and evidence derived therefrom should be reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 So. 3d 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kirk-la-2019.