State Of Louisiana VS Louis Legendre
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2008 KA 2486
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
LOUIS LEGENDRE
Judgment
On
Rendered
OCT 2 7 2009
Appeal from the Twenty First Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa
State of Louisiana
Docket No 504195
Honorable Elizabeth P Wolfe
Judge Presiding
Scott Perrilloux
Counsel for
District
State of Louisiana
Attorney
Appellee
Leanne Malnar
Patricia Parker
Assistant District
Attorneys
Amite Louisiana
Michael L Thiel
Counsel for Defendant
Summer Duhe
Louis
Appellant
Legendre
Amite Louisiana
BEFORE
f
p
11
6
DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ
J
C
o
S
rMf
McCLENDON J
Legendre
The defendant Louis
count of
possession of 28 grams
violation of LSA R S
4O 967 F
1
a
to
reserving his right
1970
probation parole
denied
to State
v
trial court erred in
guilty and filed
not
was
on
He
1976
La
the motion to suppress
s
U 25 37 91 S Ct 160
167 27
at hard labor without benefit of
sentenced to six years
suspension of sentence
a
motion to
a
Crosby 338 So 2d 584
Alford 400
v
one
Thereafter he withdrew his former
challenge the trial court s ruling
He
or
pled
He
was
and pursuant to North Carolina
L Ed 2d 162
1
bill of information with
but less than 200 grams of cocaine
or more
suppress evidence but the motion
plea and pled guilty pursuant
charged by
was
now
appeals contending that the
For the
denying the motion to suppress
affirm the conviction vacate the sentence and remand for
following
reasons
we
resentencing
FACTS
On October 28
2005 Louisiana State
stop for improper lane usage of
Lynx Trivuce2
was a
vehicle driven
a
on
passenger
1 12 in
suddenly changed lanes almost causing
Chamorro asked the defendant to
license
The defendant had
asked where he
was
a
was
was
Trooper
step out of his vehicle and produce his driver s
international driver s license
and stated he
was
was
going The defendant initially
coming from Texas and going to Mississippi He then stated that he
going to Jackson Mississippi to visit his grandmother and then to New York
owned
was
working in Texas for
by his friend and
was
staying in
defendant claimed Trivuce
was
also
Lynx
Trivuce
was
does not reflect the
a
working
indicated that he had rented the vehicle
2
The defendant had
collision with another vehicle
coming from and where he
The defendant claimed he
1
Parish
traffic
in which
by the defendant and
Tangipahoa
a
Trooper Chamorro advised the defendant of his traffic violation and
from Trinidad
stated he
an
Trooper Chamorro conducted
in the same location
charged by the same bill of information
disposition of the charge against Trivuce
The record contains
multiple spellings
of Trivuce s
2
communication business
hotel at his friend s expense
He showed
bill of information
a
name
signs of
The defendant
nervousness
with the same offense
We
use
the
The
spelling
The record
contained in the
Trooper Chamorro approached Trivuce and asked for the rental agreement
The rental
vehicle
agreement indicated
someone
other than the defendant had rented the
The defendant then claimed that his
added him
as an
secretary had rented the vehicle and
additional driver
Trivuce indicated he and the defendant were
traveling to Mississippi to visit
family but did not know exactly where in Mississippi they
initially claimed he
working for
an
oil
working
not
was
or
on
anything illegal
in the vehicle
The defendant stated
consent to
search
were
another unit
approximately
a
including marijuana
cocaine
or
and Trooper
two miles away
Trooper Chamorro then asked the defendant if he
responded
was
and thirty days off
Trooper Chamorro requested assistance from
Darryl Davis and his police dog Spike who
Trivuce
going
He then stated he
going to school
working thirty days
rig
were
carrying
was
methamphetamines
Trooper Chamorro asked the defendant if he would
No
search of the vehicle
The defendant stated
Why do you want to
and denied consent to search
Trooper Davis ordered Trivuce to exit the vehicle and allowed Spike to sniff
around the vehicle
trunk of the vehicle
their
Spike
alerted consistent with the presence of narcotics to the
Trooper Chamorro then advised the defendant and Trivuce of
Miranda3 rights
and
they indicated they understood those rights
Chamorro asked the defendant and Trivuce what
was
Trooper
in the trunk of the vehicle
They did not respond
Trooper Chamorro opened the trunk and discovered eleven
kilograms of cocaine in
a
He then arrested the defendant and Trivuce
bag
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
In his sole
assignment of
vehicle violated his
error
rights under the Fourth Amendment because he
longer than reasonably necessary
certainly long
the defendant argues that the search of his
after any
suspicions
was
to effectuate the purpose of the traffic
were
detained
stop and
dispelled
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I
of the Louisiana Constitution
3
Miranda v Arizona 384
5
protect persons against unreasonable searches and
U S 436
86 S Ct 1602
3
16 L Ed 2d 694
1966
use
adversely affected may
A defendant
seizures
at the trial
on
the merits
LSA C Cr P
to
La
p 4
01 0908
La 4 21 03
02 2989
Terry
unconstitutionally obtained
motion to suppress the evidence
on a
opportunity to
State
weigh the credibility of their testimony
835 So 2d 703
1 Or 11 8 02
App
392 U S
police officer may briefly seize
706 writ denied
a
1
20 L Ed 2d 889
88 S Ct 1868
person if the officer has
1968
engaged
in criminal conduct or is wanted for
Code of Criminal Procedure article 215 1 A
suspicion of crime allows
is
suspicion
a
insufficient
limited investigation of
to
interrogation is investigative
6
9 06
the
a
general
beliefs
or
a
cause
purely objective
serious offenses
4
even
lawfully detaining
La 3 12 01
one
relatively
an
the
However reasonable
person
interrogation
stop
a
an
even
an
though the
955 So 2d 684
traffic violation has occurred
serve
provide
State
an
The
subjective
and may
prelude to the investigation of much
occupants
1 Cir
automobile is reasonable where
minor traffic violations
1056
Louisiana
officer s reasonable
that does not take into account the
the vehicle and its
780 So 2d 1053
laws of this state
as
is about
Caples 05 2517 pp 10 11 La App
to believe that
serve
During detention of
than
an
expectations of the detaining officer Although they may
often appear intended to
for
v
matter the decision to
police have probable
standard is
State
that
154 writ denied 06 2466 La 4 27 07
938 So 2d 147
As
custodial
justify
a
or
past criminal acts
provides
the
objectively reasonable
an
suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts that the person is
to be
v
investigatory stop recognized by the United States Supreme
Ohio
v
ruling
was
841 So 2d 791
Pursuant to the
Court in
s
to suppress any evidence from
because the district court had the
great weight
observe the witnesses and
Jones
ground that it
A trial court
art 703 A
is entitled
the
on
move
more
objective basis
Waters 00 0356 p
v
per curiam
alleged violator of any provision of the
officer may not detain
a
motorist for
a
motor vehicle
period of time longer
reasonably necessary to complete the investigation of the violation and
issuance of
criminal
a
citation for the violation
activity
absent reasonable
LSA C Cr P art 215 1 0
4
suspicion of additional
inquiry into whether
Given the fact intensive nature of the
constitutes
and
a
investigatory stop by its nature
an
citizen based
extended restraint
on
on
a
brief encounter between the
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
liberty which requires
courts have been unable to
develop
a
a
detention
a
or an
police
arrest
greater showing of probable
an
cause
bright line test to determine when police
citizen encounters exceed the bounds of
mere
Because there is
Terry stops
no
scientifically precise formula that enables courts to distinguish between valid
investigatory stops and other detentions that the law deems sufficiently coercive to
require probable
a
court
inquiring into the nature of
whether the police
must examine
was
cause
likely to confirm
diligently pursued
United States
1575 84 L Ed 2d 605
this assessment should take
care
1985
guessing Id
798 So 2d 947 949
State
police
A court
are
the court should not
Miller 00 1657
v
was
Sharpe 470 U S 675 686
citations omitted
cases
filed
a
motion
general
In connection with the motion
confession
of investigation that
pp 2 3
making
acting in
a
indulge
in
La 10 26 01
per curiam
defendant
The
v
to consider whether the
swiftly developing situation and in such
unrealistic second
forcible detention
dispel their suspicions quickly during which time it
or
necessary to detain the defendant
105 S Ct 1568
a means
a
to
suppress evidence and
or
argued the cocaine had to be
he
suppressed because Trooper Chamorro detained him longer than necessary to
The court denied the motion to
dispel Trooper Chamorro s reasonable suspicions
suppress
There
was no error
of the vehicle driven
in the denial of the motion to suppress
by the defendant
that he had violated LSA
s
R 32 58
116 S Ct 1769 135 L Ed 2d 89
were
aroused
United States 517
v
Thereafter
cause
stop
to believe
s
U 806
Trooper Chamorro s suspicions
by the inconsistent statements concerning who had rented the
s nervousness
and Trivuce
supported by probable
See Whren
1996
vehicle the inconsistent statements
defendant
was
The traffic
concerning Trivuce s employment and by the
Trooper Chamorro
neither of whom
were
was
outnumbered by the defendant
restrained in any way
5
Understandably he
It is
requested backup
Thereafter the
that
inconsequential
dog quickly alerted
K 9 unit arrived to assist him
a
to the presence of narcotics in the trunk of the
vehicle that the defendant had been
driving
of
Trooper Chamorro diligently pursued his investigation and the duration
the
stop did not transform the encounter into
following the stop
were
stop in the first place
reasonably responsive
as
to the circumstances
information he
augmented by
See Miller 00 1657 at p 3 798 So 2d at 950
defendant
s
detention did not
intensify
as
His actions
de facto arrest
a
The
justifying
the
gleaned during
which
nor
the duration of the
stop expanded to
handcuffed
restrained
or
Neither
Trooper Chamorro had
detaining the
a means
The
suspicions quickly
itself constitute
probable
cause
vehicle
96 2650
on
This
of
the vehicle
on
and at the moment the
to search the
car
s
or
Spike
to
dispel the officer s
exterior surfaces did not
dog alerted the officers had
Exigent circumstances arising from the detention
the open road excused the lack of
9 19 97
5
objective and articulable basis for
investigation likely to confirm
dog s sniff test
search
a
p 4 La
de facto arrest
to maintain the status quo for the few minutes it took
car
sniff the vehicle
an
a
circumstances
See Miller 00 1657 at p
place until the discovery of the cocaine
798 So 2d at 950
a
were
might have suggested during the lengthening delay that
had taken
of
his passenger
stop
intrusiveness of the
physical
accommodate Trooper Chamorro s growing suspicions of criminal activity
the defendant
the
a
699 So 2d 879 881 82
warrant
See State
v
Kalie
per curiam
assignment of error is without merit
REVIEW FOR ERROR
Initially
920
which
we
note that
our
review for
provides that the only matters
designated in the assignments of
error
error
is
pursuant
to LSA C Cr P
to be considered on
and
error
appeal
that is discoverable
art
are errors
by
a mere
inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the
evidence
LSA C Cr P art 920 2
The trial court denied the defendant
in this matter
However
parole
LSA RS 40 967 G
6
for the entire six year sentence
authorized the denial of
parole for
only the minimum sentence provided under LSA R S 40 967 F
Accordingly
years
Additionally
of not less than
dollars
See LSA
we
we
vacate the sentence and remand for
note that the trial court failed to
fifty thousand dollars
s
R 40 967 F
CONVICTION
1
nor more
than
which
was
five
resentencing
impose the mandatory fine
one
hundred
fifty thousand
a
AFFIRMED
SENTENCE
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
7
VACATED
AND
MATTER
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.