State v. Falcon, 138 So. 3d 79

Investigated Walmart shoplifting; December 16, 2009 search warrant authorized a search of defendant’s home for specific stolen items from Walmart.
Detectives later seized numerous items not described in the warrant; nine counts of possession of stolen things valued over $500 ensued.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence via three motions prior to pleading guilty; first denied in 2010, second denied in 2011 without new evidence, third denied in 2011.
Video evidence from Walmart’s cameras (State’s Exhibit One) was disputed for accuracy; trial revealed inconsistencies and questioned authenticity of the disc.
Plea of guilty with Crosby reservation to appeal suppression denial; sentences imposed, later reduced upon state’s motion for cooperation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for warrant	Falcon argues lack of probable cause to issue warrant.	Falcon contends insufficient basis linking him to Walmart theft.	Probable cause supported warrant; no abuse of discretion.
Warrant scope and seizure compliance	Falcon asserts seizure exceeded warrant’s particularity.	Falcon claims officers seized numerous items not described.	No reversible error; seizure within probable cause, no flagrant disregard shown.
Second suppression motion on new video evidence	Falcon argues re-opening suppression would have revealed new facts.	Falcon contends new Walmart video undermines prior suppression record.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed.

State v. Landry, 339 So.2d 8 (La. 1976) (pretrial suppression procedure and expeditious hearing expectation)
Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1984) (limits on rehearings for suppression rulings)
Medlin, 842 F.2d 1194 (10th Cir. 1988) (flagrant disregard for warrant’s particularity; suppress all seized items)
State v. Pettus, 96 So.3d 1240 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (law of the case and discretionary reconsideration on appeal)