State Of Louisiana VS Jack Lagarde
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 KA 1306 STA TE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JACK LAGARDE Judgment Rendered February Appealed 12 2010 from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Lafourche State of Louisiana Case Number 440042 Honorable F Larose Presiding Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Camille A Morvant District Hugh Attorney Martin 1 Caillouet Peter J Rousse Assistant District Attorney Thibodaux LA Larry Counsel for Defendant P Boudreaux Thibodaux LA BEFORE Jack CARTER C J Appellant Lagarde GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ GUIDRY J The defendant Jack count pled of not motion possession guilty to State sentenced motion to to He 2 000 fine methamphetamine violation of La R S 40 967 C a 338 Crosby on the motion five years at to suppress hard labor For the suppress La So 2d 584 following 1976 following plea and and pled guilty his to right he plea agreement three years of probation and that the trial we reasons a one hearing the a reserving Pursuant to suspended appeals contending now but he withdrew his former Thereafter v challenge the ruling was charged by bill of information with was He moved to suppress evidence denied was pursuant l of Lagarde court erred in denying a the affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS On informant August CI 17 2006 approximately at 9 00 p m reliable confidential a advised Lafourche Parish Sheriffs Office Detective Sergeant Paul Lagraize that Travis Bourgeois had recently received a shipment of nine The methamphetamine methamphetamine pickup truck Bourgeois All from was Thereafter Travis defendant in a he recorded You want to right come could to the CI telephone off a gram Ill call you in a purchase 9 35 p Bourgeois at of a was Bourgeois drove white conversation the CI asked Bourgeois asked for the CI s little bit when I get also arrested in up in of the on s the road house which 312 Cascade Drive in Chackbay under surveillance m a white pickup connection with the incident truck involving At At the by separate bill of information with possession of of a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous Bourgeois charged methamphetamine and illegal carrying substance See State v Bourgeois 09 0006 was some Bourgeois drove Lagraize and Detective Rodrigue placed Bourgeois under construction approximately indicated Bourgeois According location and then stated Detective CI ounces a La App 2 1st Cir 12 6 09 11 So 3d 1244 Table 9 40 p approximately called and Bourgeois again Go home to your house Due the defendant drove up in m s surveillance may have been improper on s Detective Crotchet upon closer inspection defendant of his and Crotchet retrieved the the defendant at the stop of Bourgeois police vehicle the defendant for to immediately observed Detective a He advised the Detective Crotchet he then asked to search the vehicle from the defendant Detective s wallet and Lagraize when he subsequently questioned the defendant indicated he had purchased the from Bourgeois five minutes after the defendant drove away from s vehicle Bourgeois v to crystal methamphetamine Bourgeois also drove Miranda driving Crotchet after he asked the defendant consent away Thereafter methamphetamine had been discovered 2 over had of the billfold section of the wallet and According police department Approximately comIng from pulling Detective Crotchet out granted was According methamphetamine house in an unmarked suspected crystal methamphetamine saw Miranda2 rights the defendant for arrested him s car to license the defendant removed the license from his wallet and threw s plastic baggie sticking a assist him in According to Detective the wallet onto the back of his truck portion of was s believed that the Lagraize He also observed the defendant plate to tonight and instructed Detective Crochet compromised and thus asked Officer Simoneaux The CI Bourgeois Detective Crotchet noticed that the defendant car the shoulder of the road for his driver Detective response illumination of its license the traffic violations pickup truck Don t worry about it Bourgeois responded Bourgeois follow the defendant green Thereafter the defendant drove away from family to a s Detective on Detective vehicle and asked for Arizona 384 U S 436 86 S Ct 1602 a a traffic burnt odor of marijuana consent 16 L Ed s learned that the defendant and conducted Lagraize detected 3 Lagraize Bourgeois fd to search the vehicle 694 1966 Bourgeois refused to and alerted scene to consent to a search of his vehicle and on one a After handgun half A the presence of narcotics in the vehicle ounces of was brought to the subsequent search of marijuana drug packaging paraphernalia the vehicle revealed the presence of scale and A canine a obtaining search a methamphetamine police discovered four the warrant and bank records in outboard an engine Bourgeois s property The defendant testified conceded he had a the at Bourgeois for denied wallet his pocket after He denied producing in Bourgeois his driver his wallet to consenting crystal methamphetamine went to s house He to suppress In to pick at regard up a to check He the house the back of his truck and claimed he returned the onto subsequently indicated he put weapons the motion and sheetrock work he had done concrete throwing his wallet to on previous conviction for possession of stolen things the instant offense he claimed he from hearing a license for the the truck after in his wallet police However he being patted down for He conceded he had search of his vehicle baggie a on s but denied stating he had purchased the methamphetamine from Bourgeois MOTION TO SUPPRESS In his sole in failing was to assignment grant the motion unlawfully of to of the Louisiana Constitution Subject only conducted without prohibited the defendant argues that the trial court erred suppress the because his wallet methamphetamine searched and seized The Fourth Amendment seizures error a to a to the United States Constitution and article I S 5 protect people against unreasonable searches and few well established warrant issued upon Once a defendant makes seizure occurred the burden of an probable initial proof shifts 4 exceptions cause showing that to a the State a to search is or seizure constitutionally warrantless search affirmatively or show it was justified under warrant of the one La C CrP art 703 D evidence is entitled observe the witnesses and warrant 15 9 and cause 943 So 2d 1118 06 s ruling on a court requiring motion is State an v exception Young the to had the 5 6 La 06 2488 search the opportunity to A search requirements of both 06 0234 pp 1122 writ denied a to suppress weigh the credibility of their testimony to consent probable A trial court the rule to great weight because the trial to conducted pursuant exceptions narrow La App 5 4 07 a 1 st Cir 956 So 2d 606 Prior to the guilty plea the defense moved to suppress all evidence seized the result of the search and seizure of the defendant s vehicle vehicle and wallet had been searched without the motion the defense Detective Crotchet for the stop defendant s wallet credibility had admitted was that Detective stop the defendant The defense also was The State weapons his to argued probable s vehicle only if there was probable illegal because Detective Crotchet that the defendant s questionable because he had a argued hearing on Lagraize should have instructed that Detective Crotchet argued the arguing that At the cause as testimony search of the not was searching for self serving and conviction and because he prior possessing crystal methamphetamine was s cause The court denied the motion to suppress There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion Detective Crotchet and the defendant gave whether or not the defendant threw his wallet thereafter consented to a search of his vehicle weighing their credibility the and conflicting testimony court onto After credited the that credibility determination observing the witnesses and testimony of Detective Crotchet According 5 the issues of his truck and whether he rejected the testimony of the defendant There is overturn on to suppress no to basis in the record Detective Crotchet to the defendant s wallet defendant s consent to was on the back of his truck and Aucoin 613 So 2d 206 La guilty plea a suppress to possession of LSD lot Aucoin Officer 613 Rushing was Aucoin recovered the items for a a to prior dealings from to State motion assist other officers v minutes later to Barbara Officer on leave the truck in the parking lot and away from the truck and toward Officer a other parking however talking to its the clear Officer to issue Rushing inside her wallet a that she had had other Aucoin 613 So 2d packets as asked Aucoin for In response to Aucoin As he did other tinfoil packets containing suspected drugs admitted that the packets packets Stelly misdemeanor s so became plastic compartment which had contained the license subsequently In Aucoin group of her friends friend and Officer Kenneth Rushing detained Aucoin was a Stelly opened her wallet and removed her license officers seized the tinfoil purpose of to packets fell from the wallet and several through She keys remaining after being forbidden Officer several tinfoil Aucoin into leaning her identification and she stated it visible Lounge knew to Rouge City Police Officer Approximately thirty Aucoin then threw her wallet and statement the Crosby appeal a the denial of following being closed and asked her 2d at 208 began walking summons to Upon seeing Officer Rushing and other police officers approaching occupant Aucoin the Metro similarly Aucoin involved Baton whom she lounge So saw at 207 08 to informed Aucoin that the should be decided 1st Cir 1992 Aucoin 613 So 2d occasions case App Rushing had been dispatched Rushing searched pursuant search the vehicle The defendant argues that this from was The and arrested contained LSD and indicated of LSD but had sold them before being apprehended at 208 we found that the securing Aucoin s driver opening s license 6 of the wallet was a even for the limited search and the search could not was be upheld as a consent search because Aucoin s response that her identification in her wallet did not indicate that she wanted the remove the identification Aucoin however is was no ambiguity in the This assignment Aucoin 613 So 2d distinguishable consent to search police the wallet and at 209 10 from the instant given by the case defendant of error is without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 7 to open In this case there
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
