State v. Washington
90 So. 3d 1157
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- An informant alleged a black male was distributing crack cocaine from 645 Emile Avenue, Westwego, and that the subject drove a red Monte Carlo; license PBZ558 was linked to Terrell Washington.
- A controlled buy yielded crack cocaine, leading police to obtain a search warrant issued April 5, 2007 for the residence and related property, including vehicles on the premises.
- On April 13, 2007, surveillance observed the red Monte Carlo at the residence; defendant approached the vehicle and others fled as officers executed the warrant and forced entry.
- Defendant was found inside the residence; he was detained, Mirandized, and a canine sniff was performed inside the residence and on the Monte Carlo.
- Cocaine was found in the bedroom (21.6 g) and kitchen (1.31 g) inside the residence, and 124.75 g of cocaine was found in a blue makeup bag in the Monte Carlo’s center console.
- Defendant was arrested, charged with possession of cocaine in excess of 28 to 199 grams, convicted by jury of attempted possession, sentenced to 15 years, adjudicated a second felony offender, and timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vehicle was within the warrant's scope | Washington contends the warrant only described the residence, not the car, so the car search should be suppressed. | Gravois argues the warrant of the premises allows search of vehicles on the premises because the vehicle could conceal contraband. | Vehicle search valid under premise warrant. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession | State contends the keys, ownership of the car, and access to the car establish constructive possession of the cocaine found in the Monte Carlo. | Washington argues there was insufficient evidence of dominion/control over the drugs in the car to prove possession. | Evidence supported constructive possession; sufficient for attempted possession conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 827 So.2d 1122 (La. 2002) (premises search can cover a vehicle on the premises under a valid warrant)
- State v. Carter, 75 So.3d 1 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (vehicle within scope of premises search when parked on premises)
- State v. Henry, 27 So.3d 942 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (constructive possession factors; mere presence not enough)
- United States v. Maldonado, 735 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1984) (mere ownership of vehicle not sufficient for possession; related authorities cited)
- United States v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1979) (possession of keys to a vehicle containing contraband can support constructive possession)
- State v. Reichard, 880 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (failure to advise of multiple offender rights not reversible when status shown by competent evidence)