State v. Every
274 So. 3d 770
| La. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Defendant Joshua Every was indicted for first-degree murder during an armed robbery at a Raising Cane's on June 29, 2016; multiple searches and seizures followed across jurisdictions.
- Police identified Every shortly after the robbery; officers located a black Mercedes registered to Every's mother at his LaPlace residence, observed suspected evidence (coin roll, restaurant item) inside while the vehicle was in the open driveway, detained Every, then towed the Mercedes pending warrants.
- Officers executed two warrants for the Mercedes (front cabin and later trunk), seizing coins, an Alcatel phone, and Raising Cane's materials; multiple cell phones (from the Mercedes, a getaway vehicle, co-defendants, and victim) and Facebook data were also seized and searched under separate warrants.
- Every moved to suppress (multiple motions DM-39 through DM-87, DM-77) alleging unlawful entry/curtilage search, improper towing/jurisdiction, deficient warrants (no nexus/staleness/particularity), and lack of standing for some seizures; trial court denied the motions.
- Every sought supervisory review in the appellate court; the court reviewed hearing transcripts, affidavits (some missing), and testimony, and denied the writs, affirming denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Every) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless inspection of Mercedes on driveway/curtilage (DM-39) | Police entered curtilage; Collins requires probable cause or exigency for vehicle searches in curtilage; no connection to crime. | Driveway was open/public (not enclosed curtilage); automobile exception/plain view justified observations; subsequent warrants obtained. | Court: driveway open to public, officers did not enter vehicle, vehicle linked to Every — no suppression. |
| Towing vehicle across municipal boundaries without warrant (DM-39) | Kenner PD lacked authority outside city limits absent hot pursuit; seizure invalid. | Multi-jurisdictional investigation with St. John PD and U.S. Marshals; statutory territorial limits don't require exclusion when non-constitutional. | Court: no constitutional violation; exclusion not warranted. |
| Validity of search warrants for Mercedes (DM-40 & DM-41) | Affidavits lacked nexus showing evidence likely in car; coin roll not inherently suspicious. | Affidavit tied Every to car hours after crime; coin packaging matched items from crime scene; magistrate reasonably found probable cause. | Court: affidavits provided a fair probability of evidence in vehicle; warrants valid. |
| Warrants to search multiple cell phones (DM-42–46, 78–87) | Affidavits failed to establish nexus between each phone and the crime or particularize expected evidence (Riley concerns). | Phones were found in vehicles linked to suspects/getaway car; co-defendant links and communications provided reasonable nexus; good-faith/magistrate deference. | Court: totality of circumstances established probable cause for each phone (and some claims not reviewable due to missing affidavits); denials affirmed. |
| Facebook account warrant (DM-77) | Affidavit omitted post dates (staleness) and mischaracterized content (race of victim), undermining probable cause. | Posts were publicly observable and corroborated other probable cause; omissions not shown to be intentional; good-faith applies. | Court: omissions not intentional or material to probable cause; warrant sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hernandez, 410 So.2d 1381 (La. 1982) (warrantless reentry to private property and vehicle search after arrest invalid absent contemporaneity, probable cause, or exigency)
- State v. Deary, 753 So.2d 200 (La. 2000) (police with legitimate business may enter curtilage areas impliedly open to public and observe exposed items)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrants issued by neutral magistrate)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones generally require a warrant to search; digital data implicates heightened privacy)
- State v. Gates, 145 So.3d 288 (La. 2014) (statutory/territorial violations not necessarily constitutional violations mandating suppression)
- State v. Green, 831 So.2d 962 (La. 2002) (probable cause in warrant affidavits judged on totality of circumstances; magistrate deference)
- State v. Casey, 775 So.2d 1022 (La. 2000) (staleness doctrine: passage of time relevant when it undercuts likelihood that sought items remain at location)
- State v. Rodrigue, 437 So.2d 830 (La. 1983) (marginal probable-cause cases resolved in favor of magistrate's reasonableness)