Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Louisiana » Supreme Court » 2002 » 2000-K- 3230 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PAUL BROUSSARD (Parish of Orleans) (Attempted Possession of Cocaine)
2000-K- 3230 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PAUL BROUSSARD (Parish of Orleans) (Attempted Possession of Cocaine)
State: Louisiana
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 00k3230.pc
Case Date: 05/24/2002
Plaintiff: 2000-K- 3230 STATE OF LOUISIANA
Defendant: PAUL BROUSSARD (Parish of Orleans) (Attempted Possession of Cocaine)
Preview:05/24/02

"See News Release 043 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 00-K-3230 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PAUL BROUSSARD

On Writ of Certiorari to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal

PER CURIAM: All members of the court of appeal panel agreed in the present case that the police "seized" respondent when the officers identified themselves, ordered him to stop, and boxed in his Jeep with their patrol vehicles, one positioned in front of respondent to bring him to a stop and the other positioned behind the Jeep to prevent him from backing out of the encounter and leaving the scene. No reasonable person under such circumstances would have felt free "to ignore the police presence and go about his business." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 2387, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). However, the court of appeal panel divided over the nature of the actual restraint imposed on respondent. For the majority, the police arrested respondent "when they stopped him in this manner, and as such they needed probable cause to do so lawfully." State v. Broussard, 99-2848, p. 8 (La. App. 4th Cir. 10/4/00), 769 So.2d 1257, 1261 (citing La.C.Cr.P. art. 202). Because respondent's proximity to

a drug deal conducted by two other persons with an undercover police officer did not provide probable cause to arrest him, although the seller had briefly joined respondent in the Jeep after the transaction moments before respondent left the scene and the officers closed on the vehicle after it had traveled only one block, the majority concluded that the trial court had erred in denying respondent's motion to suppress a packet of cocaine seized by the police from his pants pocket in a frisk of his clothing after the officers removed him from the Jeep. Broussard, 99-2848, p. 9, 769 So.2d at 1261. The court of appeal therefore reversed respondent's conviction and sentence for attempted possession of cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:979(F). Broussard, 99-2848 at 9, 769 So.2d at 1261. The dissenting member of the panel argued that the officers had conducted only an investigatory stop when they immobilized respondent's Jeep to prevent it from leaving the scene, that the officers had had an objective and particularized basis for suspecting respondent of criminal activity, and that the discovery of the cocaine packet in respondent's pants pocket fell within the "plain feel" exception to the warrant requirement recognized in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). Broussard, 99-2848 at 4-11, 769 So.2d at 1263-66 (Byrnes, J., dissenting). We granted the state's application to reverse the decision below because we agree with the dissent that "[i]nherent in an officer's right to make an investigatory stop of an individual and to demand his name, address, and explanation of his actions is the right to detain the subject temporarily to verify information given or to obtain information independently of his cooperation." Broussard, 99-2848 at 4, 769 So.2d at 1263. The definition of arrest in La.C.Cr.P. art. 201 keyed to "an actual restraint of the person" does not provide a bright-line or workable rule for
2

distinguishing arrests from investigatory stops because Louisiana adopted that definition, see 1928 La. Acts 2,
Download 00k3230.pc.pdf

Louisiana Law

Louisiana State Laws
Louisiana Tax
Louisiana Labor Laws
Louisiana Agencies
    > Louisiana DMV

Comments

Tips