State v. Donald, 115 So. 3d 1138

Trial court granted suppression of evidence; appellate court reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Warrant application described a controlled cocaine sale from a confidential informant (Black) supervised by police at the premises.
Affiant testimony had discrepancies; trial court found no deliberate lies and did not find the controlled buy occurred.
The warrant asserted a probable nexus between the place searched and the contraband via the controlled buy.
Magistrate could infer additional contraband was stored at the residence, despite the buy occurring away from the residence.
Officers detained the defendant near the location and conducted a search based on probable cause, leading to suppression being reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression was proper given probable cause	State argues probable cause existed from controlled buy.	Defendant contends misstatements/misconduct undermine probable cause.	Probable cause established; suppression improper.

State v. Palmer, 14 So.3d 304 (La. 2009) (de novo review of suppression rulings)
State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982) (probable cause assessed within warrant application bounds)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (deliberate or negligent misrepresentations by affiant)
State v. Brannon, 414 So.2d 335 (La.1982) (search warrant sufficiency standards under misrepresentations)
State v. Grey, 408 So.2d 1239 (La.1982) (probable nexus between place and contraband)
State v. Klar, 400 So.2d 610 (La.1981) (nexus between residence and contraband)
United States v. Reddrick, 90 F.3d 1276 (7th Cir.1996) (manufactures inference of stored contraband at dealer’s residence)
State v. Varnado, 675 So.2d 268 (La.1996) (probable continuing nexus concept)
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (U.S.1966) (police not obligated to halt investigation at minimum probable cause)
Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (U.S.2013) (detention timing and standards around search.)