State v. Turner
2011 La. App. LEXIS 1548
| La. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Turner pled guilty to multiple marijuana offenses, firearm by a felon, and controlled substances; sentences run concurrently, with two sentences amended to run without benefits after appeal.
- Traffic stop disclosed marijuana in plain view; a Curry Street residence search yielded additional marijuana, Ecstasy, Xanax, a firearm, and other contraband.
- Turner had prior felonies and parole revocation status; he was under investigation prior to the traffic stop.
- Preliminary examination and subsequent suppression motions were litigated; a key issue was whether evidence was lawfully obtained.
- Trial court denied suppression; Turner pled guilty with reserved Crosby appeal rights; appellate court later addressed suppression and sentence-clarification issues.
- Court applied Crosby framework and examined whether typographical errors in warrants and subsequent evidence taint the search and seizure outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause at preliminary examination | Daniels controls; probable cause deficient | Lack of independent knowledge; hearsay misuse | Probable cause moot post-conviction; not reversible |
| Admissibility of photographs with incorrect date stamps | Defendant seeks suppression due to date error | Equipment defect; expert inspection needed | Photographs admissible; error harmless |
| Validity of search warrant with incorrect address | Typographical error incorrect; warrants invalid | Warrant invalid if address wrong | Warrant sufficiently detailed; not invalid due to minor error |
| Traffic stop and permissible search incident to stop | Stop justified by observed violation; evidence seized valid | Stop pretextual; suppression warranted | Stop valid; evidence from stop and subsequent search preserved |
| Evidence seized from Curry Street residence/vehicle owned by defendant | Turner controlled the premises and vehicle | Not in control; improper entry | Warrant valid; defendant had control and vehicle linked to him |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Daniels, 634 So. 2d 962 (La.App.2d Cir.3/30/94) (mootable issue after conviction; preliminary-exam errors may be reviewable through Crosby plea)
- State v. Hemphill, 942 So. 2d 1263 (La.App.2d Cir.11/17/06) (reviewing suppression rulings; weigh factual findings de novo for law)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (pretextual stops permissible if probable cause exists for violation)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 368 U.S. 871 (1961) (exclusionary rule; warrantless searches and seizures must fit exceptions)
- State v. Korman, 379 So. 2d 1061 (La.1980) (minor errors in description do not invalidate a warrant)
- State v. Petta, 354 So.2d 563 (La.1978) (requirement of particularity in warrant description)
- State v. Cobbs, 350 So.2d 168 (La.1977) (premises description sufficiency in warrants)
- State v. Manzella, 392 So.2d 403 (La.1980) (police know about searched premises; scope issues)
- Crosby v. Louisiana, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976) (pretrial motion to suppress preserved on appeal)