75 So. 3d 876
La.2011Background
- Rochon charged by bill of information for theft over $500; he was not in custody at filing and was unaware of proceedings initially.
- District court issued an arrest warrant under La. C.Cr.P. art. 496 with $25,000 bond after Rochon failed to appear for arraignment.
- Indigent defender challenged the warrant and article 496 as unconstitutional without a prior probable-cause determination; district court recalled the warrant.
- State filed writ application seeking review; issues focused on ripeness, mootness, and the constitutionality of article 496.
- Court held article 496 must be read pari materia with Art. 202 so a warrant may issue based on an information only if an accompanying affidavit shows probable cause for the arrest.
- Court ultimately reversed the district court, upholding a narrow construction of article 496.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ant challenge to art. 496 is ripe for review | State argued the issue was not ripe due to lack of injury | Rochon argued the issue was moot or non-justiciable before arrest | Not ripe; court held it ripe due to imminent injury and repetition risk |
| Whether the case is moot and should be dismissed | State contended mootness did not apply given potential repetition | Rochon argued events rendered case moot | Not moot; exception for capable of repetition yet evading review applies |
| Constitutionality of La. C. Cr.P. art. 496 under a narrow construction | State urged constitutional reading; statute can be saved by narrowing | Rochon urged Article 496 unconstitutional as written | Constitutional under narrow construction: a warrant under Article 496 may issue only if the information shows probable cause via an affidavit |
| Relation of Article 496 to Article 202; pari materia construction required | State urged pairing to require probable-cause affidavit | Rochon argued statute could be read in conflict with Article 202 | Read in pari materia; arrest warrant under Article 496 requires an affidavit showing probable cause per Article 202 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (probable cause must be determined by neutral authority; information alone not sufficient)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (48-hour rule generally ensures prompt probable-cause determinations)
- Ring v. State, DOTD, 02-1367 (La.1/14/03) (La. 2003) (ripeness concerns before ruling on constitutional challenges)
- State v. Wallace, 25 So.3d 720 (La. 2009) (timeliness of probable-cause determinations in Orleans Parish)
- Lacour, 398 So.2d 1129 (La. 1981) (mootness exception for capable of repetition, yet evading review)