87 So. 3d 857
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant is a passenger in a westbound Impala on Kings Highway near the I-49 overpass when stopped by police.
- The initial stop allegedly arose from a lane-change without signaling, but video shows no lane change or required signaling by the Impala.
- Video chronology indicates officers planned a stop as a regular traffic stop despite claims of an observed violation.
- Once lights and sirens were activated, the Impala pulled into a service station; the driver complied promptly.
- Defendant was cited for not using a turn signal for at least 100 feet prior to exiting the street and arrested for open-container violations.
- The court concluded the initial stop was illegal and suppression of all subsequently obtained evidence was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial stop lawful? | Collins argues the stop was based on an unfounded lane-change violation. | Collins contends officers pretextually used a minor infraction to stop without probable cause. | No reasonable suspicion supported the stop; stop suppressed. |
| Was the second ticket valid or tainted by the pretextual stop? | The cited turn-signal infraction lacks independent justification and follows the unlawful stop. | Officers acted on a separate purported violation unrelated to the pretextual stop. | Second ticket not supported; evidence suppressed. |
| Was the open-container arrest/search lawful? | There was no probable cause for the open-container arrest; search was improper. | Probable cause existed for the open-container violation. | Insufficient probable cause; suppression warranted. |
| Should all evidence be suppressed as fruit of a poisonous tree? | Illegal initial stop taints all subsequent searches. | Some seizures may be independent of the illegality. | Yes; all related seizures suppressed. |
| Is a pretextual stop lawful if a traffic violation is actually observed? | Pretextual stops should be unlawful regardless of observed violations. | Under Whren, a pretextual stop is lawful if a traffic violation is observed. | Not dispositive here; the stop itself was unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1996) (pretextual stops permitted if an observed traffic violation exists)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008) (arrests for probation/parole violations do not automatically violate the Fourth Amendment)
- Wells v. State, 45 So.3d 577 (La. 2010) (Louisiana case addressing suppression and related standards)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1963) (exclusionary rule principles and taint from prior illegality)
- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1920) (fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine and exclusionary principles)