State Of Louisiana VS Jeffery Daniels
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 4 t1 OV 2011 KA 2060 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JEFFERY DANIELS Judgment Rendered JUN 8 2017 On Appeal from the 20th Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of East Feliciana Trial Court No 1 l CR364 Division B The Honorable William G Carmichael Judge Presiding Samuel C D Aquilla Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Kathryn Jones Assistant District Attorney Clinton Louisiana State of Louisiana and Stewart B Hughes Special Assistant District Attorney Clinton Louisiana Margaret Sollars Appellate Counsel Counsel for Defendant Appellant Jeffery Daniels Thibodeaux Louisiana BEFORE GAIDRY MCDONALD AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES I The defendant Jeffery Daniels was charged by bill of information with possession of a Schedule 11 controlled dangerous substance cocaine a violation of LSAR 40 The defendant initially pled not guilty and filed a motion S 967 C to suppress evidence After the trial court denied the defendant motion to s suppress the defendant withdrew his former plea of not guilty and entered a plea of nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress under State v Crosby 338 So 584 La 1976 2d The trial court imposed a suspended sentence of three years at hard labor placed the defendant on supervised probation for five years and ordered the defendant to pay a 1000 00 fine The defendant now appeals alleging one assignment of error For the following reasons we affirm the defendant conviction and sentence s FACTS The facts are taken from the testimony of Jackson Deputy Marshall Rick Martin the only witness to testify at the defendant motion to suppress hearing s Shortly after midnight on April 12 2011 Martin was patrolling La Highway 10 in Jackson when he observed the defendant walking on the shoulder of the road Martin stopped his patrol vehicle near the defendant and at that time he recognized the defendant as a person who had previously had encounters with law enforcement Martin asked the defendant whether he had any outstanding warrants and whether he had any weapons or narcotics on his person The defendant responded negatively and Martin went inside his vehicle to run the defendant s name for warrants When a search returned no outstanding warrants for the s defendant arrest Martin exited his vehicle and again approached the defendant At that time the defendant voluntarily reached into his pocket and removed a pack of cigarettes and a lighter The defendant placed those items on the hood of s Martin car and announced that those items were all he had in his possession 2 Martin picked up the pack of cigarettes to look inside but he did not see anything However when Martin started to hand the pack of cigarettes back to the defendant he heard something rattle inside After closer inspection Martin discovered an object inside the cigarette pack which appeared to be a rock of crack cocaine Martin immediately placed the defendant under arrest and advised him of his Miranda rights ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence Specifically the defendant contends that the evidence of his drug possession was gathered as a result of an illegal seizure that was unsupported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause The State bears the burden of proving the admissibility of any evidence seized without a warrant when the legality of a search or seizure is placed at issue P Cr D by a motion to suppress evidence See LSAC art 703 When a motion to suppress is denied the trial court factual and credibility determinations will s not be reversed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court s discretion i unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence e State v Green 94 0887 La 5 655 So 272 281 However a trial court legal 95 22 2d s findings are subject to a de novo standard of review See State v Hunt 2009 1589 La 12 25 So 746 751 09 1 3d The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and La Const art 1 5 guarantee citizens the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures The Fourth Amendment provides that the people shall be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures La Const art 1 5 provides in pertinent part Every person shall be secure in his Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 86 S 1602 16 L 694 1966 S Ct 2d Ed k person property communications houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches seizures or invasions of privacy Clearly not all encounters between law enforcement and individual citizens constitute seizures See Terry v Ohio 392 U 1 19 n 88 S 1868 1879 S 16 Ct 16 n 20 L 889 1968 Federal jurisprudence has concluded that a seizure 2d Ed occurs o when the officer by means of physical force or show of authority nly has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen Id The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that under Louisiana slightly broader definition of the term a s seizure may also occur when the police come upon an individual with such force that regardless of the individual sattempts to flee or elude the encounter an actual stop of the individual is virtually certain to occur See State v Sylvester 2001 0607 La 9 826 So 1106 1108 per curiam State v Tucker 626 02 20 2d 2d So 707 712 La 1993 The United States Supreme Court has recognized three distinct types of police citizen interactions with accompanying levels of justification to establish that the government action was reasonable or necessary 1 arrest which must be supported by probable cause see Maryland v Pringle 540 U 366 370 124 S Ct S 795 799 157 L 769 2003 2 brief investigatory stops which must 2d Ed be supported by reasonable articulable suspicion see Terry 392 U at 21 88 S Ct S at 1880 and 3 brief encounters between police and citizens which require no objective justification see Florida v Bostick 501 U 429 434 111 S S Ct 2382 2386 115 L 389 1991 2d Ed Under Louisiana law the same levels of justification are needed to find reasonable each of these three types of police citizen interactions See State v Anthony 980406 La 4 776 So 376 00 11 2d 389 cent denied 531 U 934 121 S 320 148 L 258 2000 probable S Ct 2d Ed cause needed for arrest LSA C art 215 reasonable suspicion needed P Cr A 1 for temporary investigatory stop and State v Sherman 050779 La 4 06 0 931 2d So 286 291 mere communication implicates no Fourth Amendment concerns In this case the State contends that the facts show a consensual encounter between a law enforcement officer and a pedestrian that did not implicate any constitutional protections The defendant disagrees and argues that there was no inherently suspicious behavior that would justify what he characterizes as an investigatory stop At the outset we note that a law enforcement officer may approach any person and ask simple questions without a requirement of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity See State v Herrera 20091783 La 12 23 So 896 09 18 3d 897 per curiam Sherman 931 So at 291 In addition a officer request 2d ns for identification does not turn the encounter into a forcible detention unless the request is accompanied by an unmistakable show of official authority indicating to the person that he or she is not free to leave Sherman 931 So at 291 2d In State v Martin 2011 0082 La 10 11 25 3d So the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a case with facts similar to those in the instant case In Martin a police officer encountered the defendant as they crossed paths at a convenience store Because the officer recognized the defendant as a person who had previously been in trouble with law enforcement he asked the defendant for his identification to check for outstanding warrants At some point the officer determined that the defendant had no outstanding warrants but the small talk between the officer and the defendant continued Eventually the police officer asked the defendant whether he had anything illegal on him and the defendant responded that he had four Soma pills in his pocket The defendant was placed under arrest for possession of a Schedule IV controlled dangerous substance On appeal the appellate court reversed the trial court denial of the s s defendant motion to suppress finding that the defendant encounter with the s 5 police officer evolved from what was initially a consensual encounter to an intrusion upon the defendant liberty when the police officer asked for the s s defendant identification without any reasonable suspicion The supreme court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court ruling denying the s s defendant motion to suppress The court first rejected a per se rule for determining whether an unreasonable seizure or detention had occurred and instead reiterated its commitment to a totality of the circumstances test for this determination The court then concluded that nothing in the conduct of the police officer decisively changed the consensual nature of the officer brief encounter s with the defendant into a detention Among the circumstances considered by the court were the brief nature of the encounter the fact that the warrant check was completed quickly and the s defendant voluntary answer to a potentially incriminating question In the instant case Deputy Marshall Martin stated that he pulled his car over to the side of the road partly to check on the safety of the defendant who was a pedestrian on a highway at a late hour From Martin stestimony it appears that the encounter was brief and the defendant warrant check was completed quickly s Further although not dispositive in themselves we note that Martin never activated his emergency lights nor did he handcuff or restrain the defendant in any other way Thus there appears to have been no unmistakable show of official authority indicating to the defendant that he was not free to leave See Sherman 931 So at 291 2d Finally the defendant act of removing his pack of cigarettes s and lighter from his pocket and placing them near Martin on the hood of his patrol vehicle is not altogether different from the defendant in Martin admitting that he sown unsolicited actions led to was in possession of drugs Here the defendant s Martin discovery of the crack cocaine inside of the pack of cigarettes J1 Based on our review of the record we find no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court ruling denying the defendant motion to suppress s s Under the totality of the circumstances no unreasonable seizure or detention of the defendant occurred in this case See State v Martin 2011 0082 La 10 11 25 This assignment of error lacks merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 7 3d So
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.
