State Of Louisiana VS Conrad P. Shelby
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 0759 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CONRAD P SHELBY Judgment Rendered December 22 2010 eX7 Appealed from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court z In and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Trial Court Number 470 111 Honorable William J Crain Judge Walter P Reed District Attorney Covington LA Attorneys for State Appellee and Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Gary W Bizal Robert Glass New Orleans LA Attorneys for Defendant Appellant Conrad P Shelby BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J WELCH J The defendant Conrad P Shelby was charged by bill of information with possession with intent to distribute MDMA a violation of La R 40 S 966 1 A Count 1 possession with intent to distribute marijuana a violation of La R S 1 A 966 40 Count 2 possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine a violation of La R 40 Count 3 possession with intent to distribute S 967 1 A cocaine a violation of La R 40 Count 4 and possession with intent S 967 1 A to distribute psilocybins a violation of La R 40 Count 5 S 966 1 A The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence and following a hearing on the matter the motion was denied Thereafter the defendant withdrew his prior pleas of not guilty and at the Boykin hearing entered a Crosby plea of guilty to all five counts reserving his right to challenge the trial court ruling on the motion to s suppress See State v Crosby 338 So 584 La 1976 2d The defendant was sentenced as follows on Count 1 he was sentenced to five years at hard labor on Court 2 he was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor and ordered to pay a 000 10 fine with fifteen years of the sentence to be suspended five years to be served without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence and upon release the defendant was to serve five years of supervised probation subject to special conditions of probation on Count 3 he was sentenced to five years at hard labor on Count 4 he was sentenced to five years at hard labor and on Count 5 he was sentenced to five years at hard labor concurrently The sentences were ordered to run The defendant now appeals designating one assignment of error We affirm the convictions and sentences FACTS At the motion to suppress hearing on May 14 2009 several law enforcement officers from Louisiana and Mississippi testified about the events I The defendant filed a motion for leave to file a reply brief We grant the motion N s surrounding the defendant arrest and the subsequent application execution of several search warrants for and Agent Brian Sullivan with the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics testified that in July of 2008 he received information from a confidential informant that a female later identified as Rani Cuevas co defendant was delivering large quantities of marijuana to the residence of Cory Ladner in Pass Christian Mississippi Several days later Agent Sullivan along with other Mississippi law enforcement officers initiated surveillance on Ladner s residence and observed Cuevas leaving Ladner residence in a vehicle with a s Louisiana license plate Officers followed Cuevas to a Liberty Road residence in Slidell Louisiana James Impastato and his wife Melissa Cuevas Cuevas s mother lived at the Liberty Road residence Impastato testified at the hearing that while Cuevas had a second floor bedroom at his home she was not there often During the time Cuevas was under surveillance she was not according to Impastato living at the house on Liberty Road Days later Mississippi officers again initiated surveillance on Ladner in Mississippi Officers followed him from his home and conducted a traffic stop They found marijuana in his vehicle Ladner informed the officers that he was receiving marijuana in bulk from one to four pounds from Cuevas Ladner believed Cuevas source of the marijuana was the defendant Cuevas boyfriend s s Officers determined that Ladner could be used as an informant Subsequently Ladner communicated with Cuevas through text messaging Cuevas agreed to sell several pounds of marijuana to Ladner On July 2 2008 the day of the arranged drug buy Mississippi and Louisiana officers initiated surveillance on Slidell addresses that agents from Mississippi believed Cuevas was residing at or frequented namely residences on Z The defendant girlfriend was identified at the motion to suppress hearing as Rani Cuevas s who has also appealed in docket no 2010KA0649 decided this day raising the same issue as the defendant in her appeal State v Cuevas 20100649 La App 1 Cir 12122110 5t unpublished 9 Garden Drive and Liberty Road Officers observed the defendant and Cuevas drive to the Garden Drive residence in a blue fullsize Dodge Ram truck with an extended cab They went inside When they returned to the truck the defendant was carrying a bundle of clothes and Cuevas had a book bag over her shoulder They then drove to the Liberty Road residence where they stayed for several minutes From there they drove to a gas station They left the gas station and drove to a residence on CC Road where they stayed for several minutes During the time the defendant and Cuevas were making those stops Cuevas and Ladner were text messaging each other Ladner kept Agent Sullivan informed about the contents of the text messages After the defendant and Cuevas left the CC Road residence Cuevas texted Ladner that they were headed to Pass Christian to meet him Ladner at a gas station at the Kiln Delise exit Trooper Ron Whittaker Jr with the Louisiana State Police narcotics section testified at the hearing that he conducted surveillance on the Liberty Road residence Officers conducted a trash pull at that residence and found marijuana gleanings paraphernalia and gallon sized vacuum sealed bags Law enforcement agents followed the defendant and Cuevas to Mississippi Agent Sullivan contacted the Harrison County Sheriffs Department and asked them to stop the truck the defendant and Cuevas occupied when it entered Harrison County Deputy Danny Gilkerson with the Harrison County Sheriffs Department observed the defendant pass him Deputy Gilkerson followed the truck and saw it veer onto the shoulder of the road Having observed that traffic violation which provided probable cause for stopping the truck Deputy Gilkerson stopped the vehicle Upon approaching the truck Deputy Gilkerson smelled marijuana from the truck He requested consent to search the truck but the defendant and Cuevas refused A K9 unit was brought to the scene The dog alerted and upon a search of the vehicle officers found behind the driver seat a cardboard box containing s Ell approximately three pounds of marijuana arrested and Mirandized coming from The defendant and Cuevas were The defendant was asked by an agent where he was The defendant responded he had come from his house which was the residence on CC Road Louisiana police officers subsequently requested search warrants for the three residences where the defendant and Cuevas were observed under surveillance stopping at before traveling to Mississippi with approximately three pounds of marijuana to sell At the Liberty Road address officers seized a large amount of narcotics and paraphernalia including marijuana cocaine assorted prescription pills hashish mushrooms vacuumseal bags smoking pipes and a digital scale At the Garden Drive address officers seized a pipe used for smoking marijuana and vacuumseal bags At the CC Road address officers seized a black suitcase filled with marijuana and 62 in cash inside a compact disc case near the 100 suitcase ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from 32865 CC Road in Slidell Specifically the defendant contends that the search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause and further that the search warrant cannot be saved by the Leon goodfaith exception The defendant is not attacking the validity of the Liberty Road address and Garden Drive address search warrants When a search and seizure of evidence is conducted pursuant to a search warrant the defendant has the burden to prove the grounds of his motion to suppress La C art 703 State v Hunter 632 So 786 788 La App P Cr D 2d 1 Cir 1993 writ denied 940752 La 6 638 So 1092 94 17 2d When a trial court denies a motion to suppress factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court discretion i unless s e k such ruling is not supported by the evidence See State v Green 940887 p 11 s La 5 655 So 272 281 However a trial court legal findings are 95 22 2d subject to a de novo standard of review See State v Hunt 20091589 p 6 La 09 l 12 25 So 746 751 3d Article 1 5 of the Louisiana Constitution requires that a search warrant may issue only upon an affidavit establishing probable cause to the satisfaction of an impartial magistrate La C art 162 Probable cause exists when the facts P Cr and circumstances within the affiant knowledge and of which he has reasonably s trustworthy information are sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that evidence or contraband may be found at the 2d place to be searched State v Johnson 408 So 1280 1283 La 1982 The facts establishing the existence of probable cause for the warrant must be contained 2d within the four corners of the affidavit State v Duncan 420 So 1105 1108 La 1982 see State v Green 20021022 pp 67 La 12 831 So 962 02 4 2d i GI An issuing magistrate must make a practical commonsense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place Illinois v Gates 462 U 213 238 103 S 2317 2332 76 L 527 1983 State v S Ct 2d Ed Byrd 568 So 554 559 La 1990 The process of determining probable cause 2d for the issuance of a search warrant does not involve certainties or proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even a prima facie showing but rather involves probabilities of human behavior as understood by persons trained in law enforcement and as based on the totality of circumstances The process simply requires that enough information be presented to the issuing magistrate to enable him to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system See State v Rodrigue 437 no 2d So 830 83233 La 1983 see also Green 20021022 at p 7 831 So at 2d ZOO The review of a magistrate determination of probable cause prior to issuing s a warrant is entitled to significant deference by reviewing courts A fterthefact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de novo review Gates 462 U at 236 103 S at 2331 Further because of the S Ct preference to be accorded to warrants marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate judgment was reasonable United States s v Ventresea 380 U 102 109 85 S 741 746 13 L 684 1965 S Ct 2d Ed Rodrigue 437 So at 833 2d In the instant matter the defendant contends that the CC Road address search warrant affidavit contained no information on ownership of that property that the surveilling officers observed no activity independently warranting suspicion there and there was no evidence that either the defendant or Cuevas entered any of the buildings on CC Road The defendant also maintains that agents had not on any prior occasion connected the CC Road address to Cuevas We address first Cuevas connection to the CC Road address s Agent Sullivan testified at the motion to suppress hearing that the defendant and Cuevas went to 32865 CC Road in Slidell and stayed there for several minutes before driving to Mississippi While it is not clear whether they entered the house or the trailer on that property it is clear they remained at the property for several minutes The Liberty Road search warrant affidavit indicated that the investigation by agents with the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics revealed that Cuevas had provided marijuana to subjects both in the Slidell area and Mississippi Testimony at the hearing further established that the defendant lived at the CC Road residence 3 The CC Road address search warrant describes the residence as follows a single two story wooden residence set off of the roadway A large white FEMA trailer is located east of the residence I and that Cuevas was the defendant girlfriend Also Ladner to whom Cuevas s agreed to sell about three pounds of marijuana testified that he thought Cuevas s source of the marijuana was the defendant Cuevas boyfriend As such despite s the defendant contention Cuevas was clearly connected to the CC Road address s As indicated by the defendant in his brief the CC Road address search warrant affidavit as well as the search warrant did not provide that the defendant lived at the CC Road address This likely was an oversight on the part of Detective Scott Saigeon the search warrant affiant About two hours prior to Judge Elaine DiMiceli signing the CC Road address search warrant she signed the Liberty Road address search warrant which indicated that the defendant residence was on CC s Road The affiant of the Liberty Road address search warrant was Trooper Whittaker It would appear therefore that Judge DiMiceli was aware that the defendant lived at the CC Road residence when she signed the CC Road address search warrant Nevertheless even had Judge DiMiceli not known that the defendant lived at the CC Road residence we would look to the testimony at the motion to suppress hearing which established the defendant resided at the CC Road address Normally the law does not permit a reviewing court to go outside the four corners of a search warrant affidavit in reviewing a probable cause determination However when there are inadvertent material omissions the court will look to outside evidence to support or destroy a probable cause finding State v Morris 444 So 1200 1202 La 1984 see State v Fugler 971936 p 25 La App 1St 2d Cir 9 721 So 1 20 amended in part on rehearing 971936 La App 1 98 25 2d 5t Cir 5 737 So 894 writ denied 991686 La 11 749 So 668 99 14 2d 99 19 2d Detective Saigeon included in his affidavit twenty paragraphs that address the workings of drug dealers and drug dealing in broad general terms In his brief the defendant asserts that Detective Saigeon was reduced to pumping up his meager N offering 20 with paragraphs of boilerplate descriptions that include generalizations so farfetched in their invocation of the drug world at large as to be absurd in our case We do not agree In United States v Webster 960 F 1301 1307 5 2d per Cir curiam cert denied 506 U 927 113 S 355 121 L 269 S Ct 2d Ed 1992 wherein a search warrant was upheld the affidavit alleged that based on the officer experience drug dealers and traffickers commonly keep caches of s drugs as well as paraphernalia and records of drug transactions in their residences Similarly Detective Saigeon in the instant matter provided information regarding how drug dealers might use their homes such as d That it is common for narcotics traffickers to maintain books records receipts notes ledgers airline tickets receipts relating to the purchase of financial instruments and the transfer of or funds and other papers relating to the transportation ordering sale and distribution of controlled substances That the aforementioned books records receipts notes ledgers etc are maintained where the traffickers have ready access to them e That it is common for largescale drug dealers to secrete proceeds of drug sales and records of drug transactions in secure locations within their residences their businesses and other locations which they maintain dominion or and control over for ready access and to conceal these items contraband from law enforcement authorities f accomplish this concealment narcotics traffickers frequently build stash places within their residences That in order to or businesses The addition of these paragraphs to the affidavit indicates that Detective Saigeon was aware that the defendant lived at the CC Road residence A judge issuing a search warrant may infer that evidence is likely to be found where a drug dealer lives See State v Profit 20001174 pp 5 6 La 1 778 So 01 29 2d 1127 1 per curiam Also a sufficient nexus exists between marijuana seized 130 from a vehicle and the defendant residence to establish probable cause for a s warrant to search the premises because a residence is a quite convenient E commonlyused place for planning continuing criminal activities like largescale marijuana trafficking and money laundering Profit 20001174 at p 6 778 2d So at 1130 uoting United States v Robins 978 F 881 892 5 Cir 2d 1992 Accordingly we conclude that the information that the defendant lived at the CC Road address which was not included in the affidavit was a material omission Given the importance of the evidence that the defendant lived at the CC Road address that such information had been provided in Trooper Whittaker s affidavit for the Liberty Road address and that Detective Saigeon provided in his search warrant affidavit information on how drug dealers use their homes to maintain and secret records of drug transactions we conclude that such an omission from Detective s Saigeon affidavit was inadvertent Therefore considering all of the information officers had including that the defendant and Cuevas were known drug dealers the defendant lived at the CC Road address and the CC Road address was the last place they visited before being arrested in Mississippi for transporting about three pounds of marijuana we find there was probable cause to issue the CC Road address search warrant See State v Revere 572 So 117 128 La App 1 Cir 1990 writ denied 581 So 703 La 2d 2d 1991 While not dispositive of the probable cause issue which has been resolved we feel the following issue should be addressed The defendant states in his brief It is reasonable to conclude that the decision to seek the CC Road warrant was an afterthought According to the defendant When the searches of Garden Drive and Liberty Drive failed to produce a major trove of evidence the agents were hoping to discover they seized on the idea of taking a shot at CC Road We do not agree with this assessment of why CC Road was searched The only information Detective Saigeon had at the time he applied for a search warrant was 10 that the defendant and Cuevas after having left the CC Road residence were arrested in Mississippi for drug possession Neither the CC Road search warrant nor the affidavit makes any reference to any searches or the products thereof of the Liberty Road or Garden Drive residences Further Detective Saigeon testified on cross examination at the motion to suppress hearing that the information he included in his CC Road search warrant affidavit had nothing to do with any evidence seized at either Liberty or Garden Q Did anybody tell you that there was any evidence seized at either of those two locations A Nobody did and I wasn present for either one of those t search warrants While those were occurring I was preparing my affidavit So you preparing your affidavit as they were actually re searching those other two residents sic Q A That correct s Q So nothing retrieved from those two residents sic caused you to believe that there was anything at the CC address A No sir I wasn present that correct t s Finally we note that even had the CC Road address search warrant been based on less than probable cause under the Leon goodfaith exception the evidence seized pursuant to that search warrant would not be suppressed It is well settled that even when a search warrant is found to be deficient the seized evidence may nevertheless be admissible under the goodfaith exception of United States v Leon 468 U 897 919 20 104 S 3405 341819 82 L 677 S Ct 2d Ed 1984 wherein the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution caseinchief of s evidence obtained by officers acting in an objectively reasonable goodfaith reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid 11 Under Leon 468 U at 923 104 S at 3421 four instances in which S Ct suppression remains an appropriate remedy are 1 where the issuing magistrate was misled by information the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for a reckless disregard for the truth 2 where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his detached and neutral judicial role 3 where the warrant was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable and 4 where the warrant is so facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seizedthat the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid The instances in which suppression remains an appropriate remedy enunciated in Leon clearly reflect that suppression of evidence seized pursuant to an invalid warrant is not a remedy to be lightly considered Furthermore the jurisprudence presumes good faith on the part of the executing officer and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the necessity for suppression of evidence by establishing a lack of good faith State v Maxwell 20091359 p 11 La App 1st Cir 5110110 38 So 1086 1092 writ denied 20101284 La 3d 10 17 9 3d So Applying these factors to this case we find that even if the CC Road address search warrant was to be considered defective the goodfaith exception would apply The defendant did not establish a lack of good faith on the part of the executing officer There were no misleading statements contained in the affidavit There was no evidence that Judge DiMiceli abandoned her neutral role in her issuance of the search warrant nor was there anything on the face of the warrant that would make it so deficient that it could not be presumed valid Detective Saigeon provided the judge information gathered by the surveillance efforts of Louisiana police officers and Mississippi narcotics agents Detective Saigeon was not unreasonable in believing he provided the judge with sufficient information to 12 issue a search warrant Accordingly suppression of the evidence would not be appropriate under the Leon goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule See Maxwell 2009 1359 at pp 11 So at 1092 38 12 3d The trial court did not err in denying the defendant motion to suppress s The assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the defendant convictions and sentences are s affirmed CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 13
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.
