STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2024 KW 0752 VERSUS

AKEAM MICHAEL DARENSBURG AUGUST 16, 2024

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 0371- F- 2024.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., PENZATO AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s decision to grant the defendant' s motion to suppress the evidence that the defendant removed from the car after probable cause arose in this case was error. See United States v. Davis, 576 F. App' x 292 ( 4th Cir. 2014)( per curiam). Additionally, the district court' s decision to suppress the defendant' s voluntary statements made while he was not in custody was error. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 300- 01, 100 S. Ct. 1682, 1689, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297 ( 1980).

Accordingly, we reverse the district court' s rulings and remand this matter for further proceedings.

ARP TPS

Guidry, C. J., dissents in part and would deny the writ application relative to suppression of the evidence. The body camera video clearly shows that at the time the officer first approached the vehicle, the defendant had the bag on his person while sitting in the vehicle, and the bag remained on his person when he exited the vehicle. The bag was not something that was detached from his person that he grabbed on the exiting vehicle. As such, I would treat the bag the same as I would treat a person' s wallet that is on his person. To the extent that the law only allows the search of the vehicle and the contents of containers in the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception, I would suppress the evidence. As the bag was on the defendant' s person while he was both in the vehicle and when he exited the vehicle, the bag should be construed as part of his person and therefore not subject to a warrantless search under the automobile exception.

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

EPUTY CLERK OF COU FOR THE COURT