98 So. 3d 903
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Harris pled guilty to simple possession of cocaine under Crosby, reserving appeal on pretrial suppression rulings.
- The trial court denied Harris’s suppression motions (cocaine in mouth and his statement).
- Police conducted a Terry-stop based on reasonable suspicion; cocaine was observed in Harris’s mouth in plain view during stop.
- Miranda warnings given during arrest were allegedly deficient, making Harris’s statement potentially inadmissible.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the cocaine evidence but reversed the statement suppression, remanding to allow Harris to seek withdrawal of his plea if necessary.
- Harris had reserved Crosby rights, so the court addressed suppression rulings separately from the guilty plea, remanding for possible withdrawal of the plea if warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to stop Harris? | Harris | Harris | Yes; stop was reasonable under Terry and Louisiana law. |
| Is the cocaine in Harris's mouth admissible given the stop? | State | Harris | Admissible; pre-stop intrusion was valid, observing cocaine in plain view. |
| Was the Miranda warning given to Harris constitutionally sufficient? | State | Harris | No; warning failed to inform Harris of right to counsel before and during interrogation. |
| Should the erroneous Miranda warning require reversal under harmless error? | State | Harris | Remand for potential withdrawal of plea; statement suppression reversed, cocaine evidence admissible; not automatically reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (right to remain silent and counsel must be communicated; interrogation requires proper warnings)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989) ( Miranda warnings need not be verbatim; must convey rights)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972) (area crime reputation permissible in evaluating reasonable suspicion)
- Hodari D. v. California, 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (show of authority vs seizure; imminent stop concept in Louisiana)
- U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (definition of seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- State v. Belton, 441 So.2d 1195 (La. 1983) (Louisiana recognizes greater protections than federal in some contexts)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (presence in high-crime area not, by itself, prove suspicion)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (harmless-error framework for trial errors)