213 So. 3d 477
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Police responded to a reported illegal firearm discharge; bullets were found in a neighbor’s wall and trajectory suggested the shot came from 4065 Indigo (the Painter residence).
- Owners Darrell and Lisa Painter signed a written consent to search the house after initially asking for a warrant; officers searched and found evidence of firearm use in the home and defendant (their adult stepson) hiding in a bathroom with keys around his neck.
- In the fenced backyard officers found an overturned child pool concealing a locked metal box; a key from the keyring removed from defendant opened the box, revealing two firearms and a powdered substance.
- Defendant pled guilty under Crosby to possession with intent to distribute acetyl fentanyl (count one) and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count two); later adjudicated a third felony offender as to count one and sentenced under the Habitual Offender Law.
- Defendant moved to suppress the box contents, arguing (1) Painter’s consent was coerced and (2) the box search exceeded consent; the trial court denied suppression, ruling Painter’s consent was voluntary and applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to the box.
- On appeal the court affirmed convictions and count-two sentence but vacated the enhanced count-one sentence for failing to specify the statutorily required minimum period without parole, remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ables) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Painter’s consent voluntary? | Consent was voluntary; officers properly warned and did not coerce; securing the residence or obtaining consent were reasonable options | Consent was coerced because officers told Painter family would wait outside in cold if a warrant was obtained | Court credited officers’ testimony and held consent was voluntary |
| Could Painter’s consent justify opening the locked box? | The search of the backyard was within consent; alternatively, defendant’s keys and statements supplied consent/apparent authority | Painter lacked actual/apparent authority over the locked box; box belonged to defendant, not Painter | Trial court found Painter lacked authority to open the box; state failed to prove Painter had authority |
| Were the box contents admissible despite lack of consent? (Inevitable discovery) | Inevitable discovery applies: officers had probable cause and would have obtained a warrant; investigation was ongoing and lawful discovery was inevitable | Evidence was fruit of unlawful search; inevitable discovery not established because mere probable cause is insufficient | Court applied inevitable discovery: evidence would have been lawfully found and thus admissible |
| Was the enhanced sentence legal under statute? | Habitual offender sentence complied with underlying and habitual provisions | Defendant argued sentencing failed statutory requirement regarding parole ineligibility | Court vacated enhanced sentence on count one because it did not order the statutorily required minimum period without parole; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (sets standard for inevitable discovery doctrine)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third-party consent by co-occupant and scope of common authority)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (distinguishes independent-source and inevitable-discovery doctrines)
- State v. Lee, 976 So.2d 109 (La. 2008) (explains Louisiana application and limits of inevitable discovery)
- State v. Flagg, 760 So.2d 522 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2000) (discusses suppression burden and Fourth Amendment standards)
- State v. Joseph, 901 So.2d 590 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (addresses burden to prove voluntary consent)