State v. Smothers

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Smothers

275 So. 3d 873

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 26, 2019

DocketNo. 2019-KK-0848

StatusPublished

This text of 275 So. 3d 873 (State v. Smothers) 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. Smothers, 275 So. 3d 873 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The state failed to prove that the officer seized the weapon in this case pursuant to a valid exception to the warrant requirement. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). Although the officer answered affirmatively when asked at the suppression hearing if the weapon was in plain view, a review of his testimony reveals no supporting facts from which the trial court could have concluded that the legal standard for a plain view seizure was met. See Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990) ; see also State v. Gray , 13-1326 (La. 6/28/13), 122 So.3d 531, describing that a plain view seizure is reasonable: 1) if the officer is lawfully in the place from which he views the object; 2) where the object's incriminating character or evidentiary value is immediately apparent; and 3) when the officer has a lawful right of access to the object. Because the state failed to prove the weapon was lawfully seized and because there was no probable cause for defendant's arrest upon his initial detention, the weapon and defendant's inculpatory statements must be suppressed. See Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Therefore, we reverse the district court's ruling, which denied defendant's motion to suppress. We grant defendant's motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.

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

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The state failed to prove that the officer seized the weapon in this case pursuant to a valid exception to the warrant requirement. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). Although the officer answered affirmatively when asked at the suppression hearing if the weapon was in plain view, a review of his testimony reveals no supporting facts from which the trial court could have concluded that the legal standard for a plain view seizure was met. See Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990) ; see also State v. Gray , 13-1326 (La. 6/28/13), 122 So.3d 531, describing that a plain view seizure is reasonable: 1) if the officer is lawfully in the place from which he views the object; 2) where the object's incriminating character or evidentiary value is immediately apparent; and 3) when the officer has a lawful right of access to the object. Because the state failed to prove the weapon was lawfully seized and because there was no probable cause for defendant's arrest upon his initial detention, the weapon and defendant's inculpatory statements must be suppressed. See Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Therefore, we reverse the district court's ruling, which denied defendant's motion to suppress. We grant defendant's motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 So. 3d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smothers-la-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack