169 So. 3d 417
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Jacob Bell caused a disturbance at a Burger King, left for a nearby McDonald’s, and was reported to police; employees asked officer to bar him from returning.
- Officer Dantin located Bell in a pickup leaving McDonald’s, activated lights, and stopped him (no traffic violation was alleged).
- On contact officer smelled alcohol, observed slurred speech and swaying, and administered field sobriety tests showing nystagmus and poor performance; Bell refused the breath test at the station.
- Bell was arrested for DWI, fourth offense (felony), moved to suppress the stop and subsequent evidence, and the trial court denied suppression; bench trial resulted in conviction.
- Bell was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor without parole/probation/suspension; on review the appellate court affirmed conviction, held suppression denial proper, found the excessiveness claim procedurally barred, rejected pro se venue and speedy-trial claims, and amended sentence to add a mandatory $5,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of stop / motion to suppress | State: Officer had reasonable suspicion based on report defendant refused to leave and caused a disturbance | Bell: Stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause because no traffic violation and he left voluntarily | Stop upheld: officer had articulable facts to suspect remaining-where-forbidden/disturbing-the-peace; objective justification sufficed (Whren rule) |
| Post-stop investigation / observations | State: Smell of alcohol, slurred speech, swaying, and poor FSTs gave probable cause to arrest | Bell: Implied challenge to validity of subsequent observations/arrest | Held: Observations were permissible and furnished probable cause for arrest |
| Sentence excessiveness | Bell: Sentence excessive | State: (respondent) | Procedural bar: defendant failed to move to reconsider sentence; claim not reviewed on merits; appellate court corrected omission of mandatory fine |
| Venue and speedy-trial (pro se) | Bell: Venue improper (city court); right to speedy trial violated | State: District court had jurisdiction; statutory time limits met or remedies inapplicable | Held: Venue proper in district court; no speedy-trial violation under applicable statutes and Barker factors; claims rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (officer’s subjective motive irrelevant where conduct is objectively justified)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (U.S. 2011) (objective review of police conduct; subjective intent not dispositive)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (framework for assessing speedy-trial claims)
- State v. Lowery, 890 So.2d 711 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2004) (police may rely on reports of a disturbance to form reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Benoit, 817 So.2d 11 (La. 2002) (observations of odor, speech, and gait are not a Fourth Amendment search and may support further investigation)