State Of Louisiana VS Justin H. Rosier
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 2204 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JUSTIN H ROSIER Judgment Rendered FA JUN r 17 2011 Appealed from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Docket Number 473533 Honorable Martin E Coady Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Covington LA State of Louisiana Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge LA Jerry L Fontenot Counsel for Covington LA Defendant Appellant Justin H Rosier BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ GUIDRY J The defendant Justin H Rosier was charged by bill of information on count one with production of marijuana a Schedule 1 controlled dangerous substance and on count two with possession of a fireann while in possession of marijuana violations of La R 40 S 966A 1and La R 14 The defendant entered a plea S 95E of not guilty on both counts The trial court denied the defendant motions to s suppress evidence and statements This court denied the defendant swrit application seeking review of the trial court denial of the motions to suppress State v Rosier s 10 0675 La App 1st Cir 5 unpublished writ action 0 1 20 The defendant withdrew his former plea and entered a plea of guilty as charged on both counts pursuant to State v 338 So 2d 584 588 La 1976 Crosby The defendant was sentenced to five years imprisonment at hard labor on both counts to be served concurrently The defendant now appeals challenging the trial court denial of his s motions to suppress For the following reasons we affirm the convictions and sentences STATEMENT OF FACTS While the defendant entered a guilty plea to the charges foregoing a trial the following integral facts and circumstances unfolded during the motion to suppress hearing On or about July 2 2009 law enforcement officers with the St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office went to a residence located in a culdesac on 84653 Camus Lane in Covington Louisiana to execute an arrest warrant for the defendant brother s Jason Rosier While on the property Lieutenant Keith Rogers discovered suspected marijuana plants cultivated near a structure described as a shed shop or outbuilding separate from the home The officers then obtained and executed a search warrant for the property See La R 40 Schedule I S 964 19 C 2 DISCUSSION In his sole assignment of error the defendant challenges the trial court denial s of his motions to suppress evidence and statements The defendant specifically argues that the arrest warrant for Jason Rosier did not justify the warrantless intrusion onto his property that resulted in the discovery of marijuana plants which was the basis for the search warrant subsequently obtained The defendant further argues that the area where the evidence was discovered is part of the curtilage of his home The defendant notes that his property was surrounded by fences and thick woods and that the private dirt road leading to his property displayed signs prohibiting trespassing or and designating the property as private The defendant acknowledges that the gate was open but notes that the home and area where the marijuana plants were found were not visible from the public road the plants were visible only after the officers travelled past the signs gate and around a curve in the private drive The defendant also notes that there was no reason to suspect any illegal activity was taking place at his address The defendant contends that the State was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that Jason Rosier was likely to be found at the location The defendant describes the expedition as a hunt as opposed to a pinpoint arrest mission In this regard the defendant notes that when the officers first arrived on the property his employee informed them that the property belonged to the defendant The defendant further notes that the license plates on vehicles and trailers observed prior to the discovery of the marijuana substantiated his ownership of the property The defendant contends that the officers did not have consent or exigent circumstances to justify entering the property The defendant contends that the issue presented herein was addressed by the U Supreme Court in Steagald v United S States 451 S U 204 212 16 1 S 01 Ct 642 1 1648 50 68 L 38 1981 2d Ed holding that a search warrant was required to search the home of a third party for the 3 subject of an arrest warrant Citing State v Byers 359 So 2d 84 La 1978 the defendant concludes that the plain view and open fields doctrines are inapplicable in the instant case The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect persons against unreasonable searches and seizures A defendant adversely affected may move to suppress any evidence from use at a trial on the merits on the ground that it was unconstitutionally obtained La C Cr P art 703A The Fourth Amendment extends to protect the curtilage of a home from unconstitutional searches T extent of the curtilage is determined by he factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself United States v Dunn 480 U 294 S 300 107 S 1134 1139 94 L 326 1987 In determining whether an area Ct 2d Ed outside the home is curtilage courts consider the proximity of the area to the home whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home the nature of the uses to which the area is put and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from outside observation Dunn 480 U at 301 107 S at 1139 S Ct The U Supreme S Court explained that these factors are not to be mechanically applied instead they are helpful to the extent they shed light on the ultimate inquiry of whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the s home umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection Dunn 480 U at 301 107 S Ct S at 113940 Not all locations are protected by the Fourth Amendment Unless specific steps have been taken to exclude the public from the area searched the defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy See Byers 359 So 2d at 87 Absent exigent circumstances or consent a law enforcement officer cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant Steagald 451 U at 213 101 S at 1648 S Ct However as noted in Payton v New York 445 U 573 602 03 100 S 1371 S Ct 4 1388 63 L 639 1980 an arrest warrant alone will suffice to enter a suspect 2d Ed s own residence to effect his arrest Specifically an arrest warrant founded on probable cause gives law enforcement officers the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within Payton 445 U at 603 100 S at 1388 State v Barrett 408 So 2d 903 S Ct 90405 La 1981 See also La C Cr P art 224 In accordance with the plain view doctrine a law enforcement officer who has a right to be where he is may seize objects in plain view See Coolidge v New Hampshire 403 U 443 46566 91 S 2022 2037 38 29 L 564 1971 S Ct 2d Ed The plain view doctrine renders a warrantless search reasonable 1 if the police officer is lawfully in the place from which he views the object 2 where the object s incriminating character is immediately apparent and 3 the officer has a lawful right of access to the object See Horton v California 496 U 128 136 37 110 S S Ct 2301 230708 110 L 112 1990 2d Ed A trial court ruling on a motion to suppress the evidence is entitled to great s weight because the court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony State v Jones 01 0908 p 4 La App 1st Cir 02 8 11 835 So 2d 703 706 writ denied 02 2989 La 4 841 So 2d 791 03 21 Correspondingly 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 iunless such ruling is not supported by the evidence s e See State v Green 94 0887 P 11 La 5 655 So 2d 272 281 Jones 01 0908 95 22 at 4 835 So 2d at 706 However a trial court legal findings are subject to a de s novo standard of review See State v Hunt 09 1589 p 6 La 12 25 So 3d 09 1 746 751 In this case the officers were attempting to execute an arrest warrant for the sbrother Jason Rosier that was issued in Florida This was the sole basis defendant 5 for the officers arrival at the location in question 84653 Camus Lane Lieutenant Rogers testified that prior to the instant incident he went to the residence in question concerning child custody issues but was unaware of the names of the individuals involved and only knew that a large family lived there Further Lieutenant Rogers was familiar with the defendant from nonlegal sporting activities but did not know the defendant by his first name and was unaware of the fact that he lived at the residence in question Based on a copy of his Louisiana driver license record and s information received from a law enforcement database called Think Stream the officers concluded that Jason Rosier lived at this address This address was also provided when the officers indirectly accessed records from a database identified as NCIC from the laptop computer in their police car The officers acknowledged that the databases could have also included several other possible addresses for Jason Rosier as multiple addresses per individual were common The officers were unaware of the issue date ofthe driver license for Jason Rosier for which they had s a print out or of when the information they accessed in the databases had been entered or updated When the officers first arrived in the area they stopped a vehicle that they observed as it was departing Camus Lane The driver identified himself as an employee of Justin Rosier and indicated that an individual named Justin Rosier was a resident of the Camus Lane address but did not specifically mention anyone named Jason Deputy Jeremy Church testified that he and the other officers still believed Jason Rosier lived at the residence after speaking with the defendant employee s Camus Lane extends through a wooded area and comes to a dead end with driveways extending from the roadway at different angles The residence in question was bordered by a barbed wire fence with a gate that was open when the officers arrived The officers went down the unpaved driveway before the home came into view as it was not visible from the road Lieutenant Rogers could not remember if all of the Co private property and no trespassing signs depicted in photographs submitted by the defense were posted on the date in question Deputy Church recalled a sign being on the telephone pole on the date in question The officers concluded that no one was in the home at the time of their arrival as no one responded when Deputy Church knocked on the door Lieutenant Rogers testified that he was not sure if the structure on the property was another residence a storage shed or an auto shop when he approached the door Like the home no one was present in the structure at the time Lieutenant Rogers walked back to the home to inform the other officers that no one was in the structure As he stood on the porch of the home Lieutenant Rogers saw the suspected marijuana plants toward the rear of the structure Lieutenant Rogers walked toward the plants for a closer observation and called Deputy Church over to also observe them The plants were not visible from the driveway In its reasons for judgment the trial court found that there was no constitutionally cognizable intrusion onto the private property of another and noted that the officers did not search the home before obtaining a search warrant The trial court noted that while a fence surrounded the entire property the gate to the fence was open when the officers approached The court further found that the area where the plants were discovered was not immediately adjacent to or used for the intimate activities of the home but rather near another building on the property not included within an enclosure immediately surrounding the home In Steagald the facts reflect that pursuant to an arrest warrant for an individual named Ricky Lyons Drug Enforcement Administration agents entered the residence of a third party Gary Steagald to search for Lyons without first obtaining a search warrant In the course of searching the home the agents found cocaine and other incriminating evidence but did not find Lyons indicted on federal drug charges Steagald was then arrested and His pretrial motion to suppress all evidence 7 uncovered during the search of his home on the ground that it was illegally obtained because the agents had failed to obtain a search warrant was denied by the trial court and Steagald was convicted The U Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed The S S U Supreme Court granted certiorari The U Supreme Court narrowed the issue S to whether an arrest warrant as opposed to a search warrant is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant when their homes are searched circumstances without their consent and in the absence of exigent The U Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit S Court of Appeals concluding that in order to render the search in that case reasonable under the Fourth Amendment a search warrant was required Steagald 451 U at S 222 101 S at 1653 Ct The instant case is factually distinguishable from Steagald Unlike Steagald in this case the officers did not enter the defendant residence before obtaining a s search warrant Instead while in the course of attempting to execute the arrest warrant for the defendant sbrother the officers noticed marijuana plants being grown outside the defendant home near a separate structure s Moreover regardless of whether the residence and property were owned by the defendant the officers obtained information that led them to believe that the subject of the arrest warrant Jason Rosier resided at the address in question Testimony indicated that the Think Stream database was customarily used by law enforcement and was highly reliable The same address was on a copy of a Louisiana driver license record for Jason s Rosier Acting on that information the officers went to Camus Lane which as noted by Deputy Church was within their jurisdiction to execute the arrest warrant The testimony presented at the motion to suppress hearing reflects that the officers believed that the residence on Camus Lane was Jason Rosier residence s We find that the officers reliance on the information obtained from the database and from Jason Rosier Louisiana driver license record was reasonable s s 8 It is also worth noting that unlike in the instant case the officers in Stewal obtained the address d where the subject of the arrest warrant was supposedly temporarily located as a guest as opposed to a resident from a confidential informant who lived in a different state from that of the subject ofthe warrant as opposed to a government source In Byers a hunter was trespassing on a 640 acre tract of land owned by Burt and Rollin Williams in October 1976 when the hunter observed what he suspected to be marijuana and reported his suspicion to local law enforcement The chief of police and the unnamed hunter returned to the private property Later the chief of police and a deputy went on the property and looked at the plants Both of these entries on the land were made without a search warrant and without the consent of the owner In early 1977 one of the officers returned to the Williams property again to determine whether marijuana was still being cultivated This entry was also made without a warrant or consent The officer concluded that there were signs of cultivation and instituted surveillance of the property On May 26 1977 officers again went on the property and observed several vehicles parked on a private logging road near the plots of marijuana The officers proceeded to the area they knew to be cultivated saw the defendants and arrested all but one of them without a warrant The remaining defendant was arrested the following day Byers 359 So 2d at 85 The defendants motions to suppress which were filed on the ground that the warrantless search and seizures violated both the Fourth Amendment of the U S Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution were denied Byers 359 So 2d at 86 The defendants filed writs of certiorari The Louisiana Supreme Court noted the marijuana was not visible from the public road posted signs announced that the logging road was private and prohibited entry of the land and a chain barred access to the private road though it was down at the time of the arrest and seizure The Court concluded that under those circumstances the defendants had a legitimate expectation of privacy Byers 359 So 2d at 86 66 Regarding the State reliance upon the plain view doctrine the Court in s Byers noted in pertinent part that the doctrine does not apply if the view is from a place that the officers have no right to be The Court found that the officers observed the marijuana from a point of observation where they had no right to be without a search warrant and accordingly concluded that the plain view doctrine was inapplicable Byers 359 So 2d at 87 The facts in Byers are distinguishable from the instant case Herein the officers were lawfully at the defendant shome as they were attempting to execute an arrest warrant at that address which they reasonably believed to be the address of the s defendant brother the subject of the arrest warrant An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night and at any place La C Cr P art 21 6 Under these circumstances the officers did not need a search warrant or the owner s consent to enter the property Thus contrary to the defendant sassertion the plain view doctrine does apply here The marijuana plants were in plain view as they were visible from the porch of the home Lieutenant Rogers did not have to move anything to be able to view the plants and the incriminating nature of the plants was readily apparent The officers were reasonable in approaching the home in an attempt to determine if the suspect was within When an officer observes evidence of a crime from a vantage point that does not intrude upon a protected area or when that protected area is entered with prior justification there is no violation of the search warrant rule because there has been no search State v Brown 370 So 2d 525 527 La 1979 Accordingly we find that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the motions to suppress This sole assignment of error lacks merit CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 10
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.
