State v. Ross

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Ross

127 So. 3d 908, 2013 WL 5762350, 2013 La. LEXIS 2081

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 18, 2013

DocketNo. 2013-KK-2069

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 So. 3d 908 (State v. Ross) 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. Ross, 127 So. 3d 908, 2013 WL 5762350, 2013 La. LEXIS 2081 (La. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Ross, Cleveland; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 515-956, Benedict J. Willard, J.; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1181.

ORDER

Writ granted. When a search is conducted for probation violations, the State’s burden is met when it establishes that there was a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring. State v. Marino, 00-1131 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/27/01); 804 So.2d 47, 52. Also, when evidence is seized without a warrant, the State shall have the burden of proving admissibility at the hearing on the motion to suppress. La. C. Cr. Proc. art. 704(D). Here, the State did not put on evidence that the probation officer had such reasonable suspicion, nor did it put on any evidence that the Defendant consented to the warrant-less search or that the contraband was found in plain view. Thus, the State did not meet its burden, and the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The trial court’s judgment is reversed and the motion is granted.

VICTORY, J., would grant and remand to the trial court. KNOLL, J., would deny.

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

In re Ross, Cleveland; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 515-956, Benedict J. Willard, J.; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1181.

ORDER

Writ granted. When a search is conducted for probation violations, the State’s burden is met when it establishes that there was a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring. State v. Marino, 00-1131 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/27/01); 804 So.2d 47, 52. Also, when evidence is seized without a warrant, the State shall have the burden of proving admissibility at the hearing on the motion to suppress. La. C. Cr. Proc. art. 704(D). Here, the State did not put on evidence that the probation officer had such reasonable suspicion, nor did it put on any evidence that the Defendant consented to the warrant-less search or that the contraband was found in plain view. Thus, the State did not meet its burden, and the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The trial court’s judgment is reversed and the motion is granted.

VICTORY, J., would grant and remand to the trial court. KNOLL, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 3d 908, 2013 WL 5762350, 2013 La. LEXIS 2081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ross-la-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack