State v. Livas

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Livas

82 So. 3d 269, 2012 WL 753807, 2012 La. LEXIS 484

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 9, 2012

Docket2012-KK-0294

StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 3d 269 (State v. Livas) 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. Livas, 82 So. 3d 269, 2012 WL 753807, 2012 La. LEXIS 484 (La. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 508-289; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1731.

11WRIT GRANTED. Given the evolving circumstances testified to by the police officers, their actions in conducting a protective sweep of the residence for safety concerns were reasonable. The trial court gave no indication that it did not believe the officers’ testimony or had any reason to doubt their credibility. Accordingly, the trial court ruling suppressing the evidence and statements is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court to re-open the motion to suppress hearing for testimony regarding the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements.

JOHNSON, J., would deny. WEIMER, J., would order a per curiam from the trial judge before resolving this writ.

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. B, No. 508-289; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1731.

11WRIT GRANTED. Given the evolving circumstances testified to by the police officers, their actions in conducting a protective sweep of the residence for safety concerns were reasonable. The trial court gave no indication that it did not believe the officers’ testimony or had any reason to doubt their credibility. Accordingly, the trial court ruling suppressing the evidence and statements is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court to re-open the motion to suppress hearing for testimony regarding the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements.

JOHNSON, J., would deny. WEIMER, J., would order a per curiam from the trial judge before resolving this writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 3d 269, 2012 WL 753807, 2012 La. LEXIS 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-livas-la-2012.