246 So. 3d 672
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 15, 2016, Shreveport police responded to a reported shooting at a McDonald’s and a related stabbing at 2761 Rosemont; officers found a badly injured victim (Davis) at the Rosemont residence.
- Officers conducted a warrantless entry of the Rosemont home for officer safety; during the sweep they found Jamarcus Bates asleep, wrapped in a comforter, with a semi-automatic pistol in his lap.
- Bates (a convicted felon) was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; he moved to suppress the gun as the product of an unlawful warrantless search.
- At the suppression hearing the parties relied on preliminary-exam testimony (Detective Coffey) and scene reports; Coffey testified officers reasonably believed an active shooter might be inside and that exigent circumstances existed.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Bates entered a Crosby plea to attempted possession and reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- On appeal the court affirmed: it found exigent circumstances and probable cause justified the entry, and, alternatively, the homeowner’s after-the-fact written consent validated the search; the court also noted (but declined to correct) an omitted mandatory fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless entry/search of 2761 Rosemont violated the Fourth Amendment | State: entry justified by exigent circumstances (possible active shooter, injured victim) and later validated by homeowner’s consent | Bates: no exigency because shooter and stabbing victim were outside by the time of the search; unclear when consent was obtained | Court: affirmed—probable cause and exigent circumstances justified entry; homeowner’s subsequent written consent also rehabilitated any prior defect |
| Whether hearsay-based preliminary-exam testimony could support suppression ruling | State: Coffey could testify based on officers’ reports; hearsay admissible at suppression hearings | Bates: implied challenge to reliance on hearsay rather than live testimony from initial officers | Court: admissible; trial court properly relied on Coffey’s testimony and reports under State v. Shirley |
| Whether consent obtained after initial entry was tainted by prior illegality | Bates: consent may be invalid if product of prior unlawful entry | State: consent was free, voluntary and documented | Court: homeowner’s written consent (notice of right to refuse) validly rehabilitated any earlier search; suppression unnecessary |
| Whether sentence omitted mandatory fine | State/Bates: did not raise at trial | Bates: not prejudiced | Court: noted sentence was illegally lenient for failing to impose mandatory $500–$2,500 fine but declined to correct it given Bates’s indigence and plea agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (recognizes narrow exigent-circumstances exception to warrant requirement)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrantless home entry impermissible absent exigency even with probable cause)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent searches require voluntariness)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (consent by third party with apparent authority)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (overnight guest has reasonable expectation of privacy)
- State v. Warren, 949 So.2d 1215 (La. 2007) (exigent-circumstances framework)
- State v. Shirley, 10 So.3d 224 (La. 2009) (hearsay admissible at suppression hearings; testimony based on reports may be considered)