State v. Harris, 261 So. 3d 149

On July 19, 2017, unmarked Shreveport PD agents in a dark blue unmarked Ford with emergency lights and siren (and a malfunctioning MVS) observed a silver Hyundai whose driver was not wearing a seatbelt.
The agents activated lights and siren and pursued the Hyundai after it initially slowed then fled, committing multiple traffic violations and high-speed driving through residential and busy streets.
The driver abandoned the vehicle and fled on foot; K-9 located Danny Harris hiding behind a shed; he was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and said he ran because he had no driver’s license.
Harris was tried by jury, convicted of aggravated flight from an officer (La. R.S. 14:108.1(C)), and sentenced to 3½ years hard labor.
On appeal Harris argued (1) officers lacked reasonable grounds to believe an offense had been committed before the chase, and (2) the pursuing vehicle was not a "marked police vehicle" as required by the statute.
The appellate court found the stop for a seatbelt violation was supported by probable cause but reversed the conviction because the statute requires a marked police vehicle and the pursuing car was unmarked.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable grounds/probable cause to initiate a stop for a seatbelt violation	Agents clearly observed driver not wearing a seatbelt; thus probable cause existed	Harris argued the state failed to prove reasonable grounds before pursuit	Held: Probable cause existed based on unobstructed view of no seatbelt (stop lawful)
Whether conviction under La. R.S. 14:108.1 requires pursuit in a marked police vehicle	State relied on activation of lights/siren and pursuit by officer	Harris argued the vehicle was unmarked and statute requires a marked police vehicle	Held: Statute requires a vehicle "marked as a police vehicle"; unmarked car with lights/siren insufficient — conviction reversed
Whether evidence showed aggravated flight (endangering human life) beyond reasonable doubt	State pointed to multiple traffic violations, excessive speeds, and running signals as meeting statutory factors	Harris contended insufficiency and challenged elements, especially given vehicle marking issue	Held: Court did not reach/sustain conviction on the endangered-life element because failure to meet marked-vehicle requirement mandated reversal

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Tate, 851 So.2d 921 (La. 2003) (appellate sufficiency review principles)
State v. Smith, 661 So.2d 442 (La. 1995) (deference to factfinder on credibility)
State v. Lilly, 468 So.2d 1154 (La. 1985) (distinguishing direct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Hunt, 25 So.3d 746 (La. 2009) (seatbelt observation supplies probable cause for traffic stop)
State v. Williams, 81 So.3d 220 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2011) (discussing marked-unit element in flight-from-officer context)
State v. White, 404 So.2d 1202 (La. 1981) (harmlessness of failure to expressly waive sentencing delay)