STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 1134

VERSUS

DETRENTA D. LEE 06, 2021

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 06- 19- 0107.

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The granting of the motion to suppress physical evidence is hereby reversed. The trial court' s legal finding that the violation of La. R. S. 32: 322( B) failed to provide probable cause for the traffic stop was erroneous. The officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the defendant of criminal activity, i. e., probable cause to believe the defendant had violated La. R. S. 32: 322( B). Under the law, " the subjective beliefs or expectations of the detaining officer" are irrelevant. State v. Waters, 2000- 0356 La. 3/ 12/ 01), 780 So. 2d 1053, 1056 ( per curiam); State v. DuPont, 2014- 0497 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 7/ 14), 2014 WL 5801488 at * 3, writ denied, 2014- 2595 ( La. 9/ 18/ 15), 178 So. 3d 145, cert. denied, 577 U. S. 1121, 136 S. Ct. 985, 194 L. Ed. 2d 8 2016); see Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1774 ("[ s] ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable -cause Fourth Amendment analysis."). Thus, the trial court' s finding that the officer lacked probable cause to stop the defendant for violating La. R. S. 32: 322( B) because " it was extremely dark outside," and " it was extremely reasonable to have bright lights on" was irrelevant.

Further, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court' s conclusion that the State failed " to overcome [ its] burden considering the fact that the consent was not given and there was no waiver[,]" was a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Jernigan, 390 So. 2d 1305, 1307- 08 ( La. 1980) (" the vehicle was in a place and at a time when it was necessary to remove it for both reasons of safety and security.").

JMK WIL EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT