State v. Jones, 128 So. 3d 436

On Dec. 17, 2011 deputies responded to a dispatch about a black male in a hooded sweatshirt selling drugs at an orange-and-white house known for drug activity.
Deputy Dupuis encountered Donald Jones standing in the driveway, asked for identification, and Jones retreated toward the side/rear of the house with his hands in his jacket.
Dupuis pursued; Jones fled across yards and over a fence, discarding a clear bag later identified as 7.6 grams of marijuana; deputies caught, read Miranda rights, and transported Jones to jail.
Jones moved to suppress the marijuana as the fruit of an unlawful stop; the trial court denied the motion after suppression hearings.
Jones entered Crosby pleas reserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion; following guilty pleas and a subsequent multiple-offender enhancement, he was sentenced and appealed.
The appellate court consolidated the related misdemeanor and felony matters for review, affirmed the denial of suppression, but remanded to correct commitment form errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial police approach/commands constituted an unlawful stop that tainted later recovery of contraband	State: approach and pursuit were lawful given dispatch, area knowledge, and observed flight; abandoned contraband admissible	Jones: officer provoked detention by demanding ID on private property; pursuit made it clear he was not free to leave so his flight was response to illegal stop, requiring suppression	Held: No violation. Officer merely approached initially; Jones’s unprovoked flight in a drug "hot spot" gave reasonable suspicion; thrown marijuana admissible as abandoned evidence.
Whether appellate review of the misdemeanor conviction was proper and whether matters should be consolidated	State: (implicit) follow appellate rules for jury-tryable cases	Jones: sought consolidation of misdemeanor and felony appeals because facts and suppression issue were intertwined	Held: Court converted/reviewed matters together for judicial economy and treated the Crosby reservation as preserving suppression issue for appeal.

State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La. 1976) (permits appellate review of specifically reserved pre-plea errors when plea accepted with reservation)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (unprovoked flight in a high-crime area supplies reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop)
State v. Lewis, 815 So.2d 818 (La. 2002) (officer may approach and ask questions without transforming encounter into a seizure)
State v. Sylvester, 826 So.2d 1106 (La. 2002) (distinguishing mere approach from constitutionally cognizable seizure)
State v. Morgan, 59 So.3d 403 (La. 2011) (flight is highly probative in totality-of-circumstances for reasonable suspicion)