239 So. 3d 960
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On March 31, 2016 officers stopped Reginald Warren for illegal window tint; officers smelled marijuana, a K-9 alerted to the vehicle, and marijuana residue was found inside.
- Sergeant Dunn searched Warren’s wallet at the scene and took a Motel 6 key card; Warren was detained and transported to the motel by officers and Probation & Parole agents.
- Probation & Parole officers (led by Agent Green) entered the motel room using the key card; marijuana was seen in plain view and methamphetamine was later discovered in a clothes hamper.
- Local narcotics task force took over, obtained a search warrant after contraband was already found, and Warren was subsequently arrested and booked.
- Warren moved to suppress evidence, arguing the wallet search was illegal (tainting the motel search), the motel search was not a valid parole search (lacked reasonable suspicion), and the motel room was not his residence; the trial court denied suppression and the appellate court denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Warren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of initial traffic stop | Stop lawful for illegal tint; objective probable cause justified stop | Not contested on appeal | Stop was valid (Whren) |
| Legality of wallet search | Search permissible as search incident to arrest because probable cause to arrest for marijuana existed and arrest occurred shortly after | Search was not incident to arrest; no arrest existed at time of wallet search | Wallet search valid as search incident to arrest (probable cause and subsequent arrest) |
| Lawfulness of motel-room entry/search | Entry conducted by Parole/Probation under parole condition permitting warrantless searches upon reasonable suspicion; plain-view contraband justified further action | Entry tainted by alleged illegal wallet search; Parole search lacked reasonable suspicion; agents not assigned parole officer so authority defective | Wallet search lawful (so no taint); facts (residue, K-9 alert, active key card, inconsistent addresses, frequent motel stays, defendant’s statements) supplied reasonable suspicion for parole search; entry lawful |
| Whether motel room was "residence" for parole search purposes | Room qualified as a residence under parole condition because Warren stayed there (key active, vehicle seen there, rented repeatedly) | Room was not his reported residence to Parole and thus not subject to parole search | Room was a residence for parole-search purposes (one may have multiple residences) |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (officer's subjective motives irrelevant where objective probable cause for traffic violation exists)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (warrantless searches generally unreasonable absent established exception)
- State v. Sherman, 931 So.2d 286 (La. 2006) (search incident to arrest analysis does not depend on officers' subjective intent when probable cause to arrest exists)
- State v. Malone, 403 So.2d 1234 (La. 1981) (parole/probation searches must be reasonable under totality; cannot be a subterfuge for other agencies)
- State v. Brignac, 234 So.3d 46 (La. 2017) (statutory text can require assignment-specific officer for probation searches; distinguishes parole statutory scheme)
- State v. Saulsby, 892 So.2d 655 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2004) (reduced expectation of privacy for probationers allows warrantless searches on reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Young, 988 So.2d 759 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (same principle on reduced privacy for probation/parole)
- State v. Coleman, 188 So.3d 174 (La. 2016) (arrest vs. detention analysis; objective test whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)