248 So. 3d 665
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Feb. 18, 2014, law enforcement (Gretna PD and U.S. Marshals task force agents) surveilled Raymond Clay’s apartment; Clay was on parole for a 2004 armed robbery.
- Detectives received an anonymous informant tip alleging Clay was involved in an armed robbery and selling guns; detectives did not corroborate the tip or establish the informant’s reliability.
- Detectives contacted Louisiana Probation & Parole; multiple Parole agents (not Clay’s assigned agent) and local officers assembled at the station and then went to Clay’s residence for a purported "compliance check."
- Parole agents performed a protective sweep and then searched the apartment pantry (finding marijuana and paraphernalia) and the parked Honda (Agent Bertrand felt and removed a pistol from coveralls on the front passenger seat).
- The State relied on parole-search authority and reasonable suspicion derived from the informant tip; Parole agents did not testify to having been told about the informant or the tip’s substance or reliability.
- Trial court denied suppression; Clay was convicted of possession by a convicted felon. The appellate court reversed suppression denial, vacated conviction, and remanded, concluding Parole agents lacked reasonable suspicion and the search was a subterfuge for a police search.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Clay's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the warrantless searches of Clay’s residence and vehicle justified under parole-search authority? | Parole condition permits searches when reasonable suspicion exists; informant tip plus confirmation Clay was on parole provided reasonable suspicion and Parole agents lawfully conducted the check/search. | The Parole agents who searched were not Clay’s assigned officers and lacked reasonable suspicion; the compliance check was used as a pretext for a police search based only on an unverified tip. | Search was unreasonable. The State failed to prove Parole agents had reasonable suspicion; the search was a subterfuge and unconstitutional. Suppression warranted. |
| Was the scope/manner of the intrusion permissible as a routine compliance check? | The sweep and subsequent checks were standard procedure to ensure officer safety and parole compliance. | Parole agents exceeded a routine check by conducting a nonconsensual pantry and vehicle search without corroboration or visible evidence. | The manner and scope exceeded a routine compliance check; agents searched beyond permissible bounds without reasonable suspicion. |
| Did the anonymous informant’s tip supply sufficient corroboration to support reasonable suspicion for Parole agents? | The tip, coupled with surveillance and parole status, justified further investigation and search. | The tip’s reliability and basis were never established or relayed to Parole agents; surveillance did not corroborate illegal activity. | The record lacks evidence Parole agents knew of or relied upon a reliable tip; thus no reasonable suspicion was established. |
| Were the seized items admissible given State’s burden at suppression hearing? | The State met its burden by showing parole status and officer conduct leading to discovery. | The State failed to meet its burden to show a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. | The State failed its burden; exclusion of evidence required and conviction vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (framework for addressing sufficiency issues on appeal)
- State v. Saulsby, 892 So.2d 655 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2004) (probation/parole search used as subterfuge invalidated where reasonable suspicion lacking)
- State v. Malone, 403 So.2d 1234 (La. 1981) (factors for assessing reasonableness of parole/probation searches)
- State v. Marks, 28 So.3d 342 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (warrantless parole searches limited; cannot be used to assist other police lacking probable cause)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (informant tips can supply reasonable suspicion when corroborated and predictive)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant reliability)
- State v. Julien, 234 So.3d 21 (La. 2017) (presence of multiple agencies and non-assigned parole officers can indicate pretext for search)