State Of Louisiana VS Darryl Ruffin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2012 KA 1793 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DARRYL RUFFIN Judgment Rendered UN ZO On Appeal from the 16th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Mary State of Louisiana G Trial Court No 2010 182134 The Honorable Edward M Leonard Jr Judge Presiding Frank Sloan Mandeville Louisiana Attorney for Defendant Appellant Darryl Ruffin J Phil Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellee District State of Louisiana Haney Attorney Walter J Senette Jr Assistant District Attoney Franklin Louisiana BEFORE GUIDRY CRAIN AND THERIOT JJ CRAIN J The defendant Danyl Ruffin was charged by bill of information with one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine count I a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 40 one count of possession with intent to 1 967A distribute marijuana count II a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 40 1 966A and one count of failure to signal when turning count III a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 32 He initially pled not guilty then moved to suppress the 104B items seized from the vehicle he was driving Then in exchange for an agreed upon sentence the State agreement not to pursue habitual offender proceedings against s him and the State agreement to dismiss counts II and III he withdrew his not guilty s plea and pled guilty on count L He was sentenced to fifteen years at hard labor The defendant reserved his right to challenge the trial court ruling on the motion to s suppress pursuant to State v Crosby 338 Sa 2d 584 La 1976 The defendant first appealed contending that the trial court failed to rule on his motion to suppress State v Ru 11 La App 1 Cir 5 unpublished n 1698 12 3 We remanded with instructions Id On remand the trial court denied the motion to suppress The defendant now appeals contending the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to suppress We affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS While patrolling the Siracusaville area in St Mary Parish narcotics agents observed the defendant driving a vehicle and loop around the block The maneuver was suspicious due to a known high volume of narcotics traffic and was commonly used by people looking for narcotics The agents then observed the vehicle fail to signal before turning at an intersection and a traffic stop was initiated 1 On appeal the State argues that the instant appeal is untnnely We have reviewed the record and find no merit to the State argument s 2 When confronted by the agents the defendant the driver of the vehicle claimed he was looking far a friend who was walking No one was on the streets and the agents noted the defendant was physically shaking in a nervous manner The agents told the defendant why he had been stopped and asked why he was so nervous Breathing heavi ythe defendant said the olice made rim nervous The agents asked if anything zliegal was in the vehi The defendant replied le there shouldn tbe or not that I aware of The agents then asked for consent to m search the vehicle and the defendant said it was his girlfriend car He was told he s had control of the vehicle and could consent to a search The defendant then consented to a search of the vehicle Several small black bags of marijuana and a Doral cigarette pack were found in the center console The cigarette pack contained a cellophane bag containing several rocks of crack cocaine a cellophane bag containing powdered cocaine and a wad of paper with two large rocks of crack cocaine The defendant was advised of his Miranda rights He denied any knowledge of the drugs MOTION TO SUPPRESS In his motion to suppress the defendant argued that the search ofthe vehicle was not voluntary and was conducted in violation of the state and federal constitutions The trial court denied the motion The defendant now argues the search was not voluntary he was illegally detained beyond the initial traffic stop and the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to suppress The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 5 ofthe Louisiana Constitution protect persons against unreasonable searches and seizures A defendant adversely affected may move to suppress any evidence from use at trial on the ground that it was unconstitutionally obtained Z Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 1966 S 3 La Code Crim Pro art 703A Because the trial court has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh tbe credibility oftheir testimony its ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is entitled to great weight State v 7ones 01 0908 La App 1 Cir ll835 So 2d 703 706 writdenied 02 La 4 02 8 2989 03 21 841 Sa 2d 791 When a motion to suppress is denied factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial s court discretion that is unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence See State v Green 94 La 5 655 So 2d 272 280 Legal findings are 0887 95 22 8L subject to a de novo standard of review See State v Hunt 09 La 12 25 1589 09 1 So 3d 746 751 Pursuant to the investigatory stop recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio 392 U 1 a police officer may briefly seize a person S 1968 if the officer has an objectively reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts that the person is or is about to be engaged in criminal conduct or is wanted for past criminal acts State v Caples OS La App 1 Cir 6 2517 06 9 938 So 2d 147 154 writ denied 06 La 4 955 So 2d 684 Louisiana 2466 07 27 Code of Criminal Procedare article 215 provides that an officer reasonable 1A s suspicion of crime allows a limited investigation of a person However reasonable suspicion is insufficient to justify custodial interrogation even though the interrogation is investigative Caples 938 So 2d at 154 Generally the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police e ha probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred The standard is purely objective and does not take into account the subjective beliefs or expectations of the detaining officer Although they may serve and may often appear intended to serve as the prelude to the investigation of more serious offenses even relatively minor traffic violations provide an objective basis for lawfully detaining a vehicle 4 and its occupants State v Waters 00 La 3 780 So 2d 1053 1056 0356 Ol 12 peN curiam During the detention of an alleged violator of the motor vehicle laws an officer may not detain a motorist for a time longer than reasonably necessary to complete the investigation of the violation and to issue a citation absent reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity La Code Crim Pro art 215 1D Due to the fact nature of the inquiry into whether a detention intensive constitutes an investigatory stop or an arrest courts have been unable to develop a line bright test to determine when police encounters exceed the bounds of citizen mere Terry stops Because there is 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 cause a court inquiring into the nature of a forcible detention must examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly dwing which time it was necessary to detain the defendant United States v Sharpe 470 U 675 1985 citations omitted A court making this assessment should S take care to consider whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation and in such cases the court should not indulge in unrealistic second Id guessing State v Miller 00 La 10 798 So 2d 947 949 per curiam 1657 O1 26 A search conducted pursuant to consent is an exception to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause State v Young 06 La App 1 Cir 0234 06 15 9 943 So 2d 1118 1122 writ denied 06 La 5 956 So 2d 2488 07 4 606 Informing a suspect of his right to refuse consent to a search is not required and the lack of such a waming is only one factor in determining the voluntary nature of consent to a search See State v Parfait 96 La App 1 Cir 1814 5 97 9 5 693 So 2d 1232 1240 writ denied 97 La 10 703 So 2d 1347 97 31 20 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant motion to s suppress The traffic stop was supported by probable cause to believe the defendant had violated Louisiana Revised Statute 32 Upon stopping the defendant the 104B agents reasonably suspected additional criminal activity The defendant was in a high narcotics traffic area had been circling the block consistent with looking for drugs claimed he was looking for a friend on the streets but no one was walking on the streets and was so nervous that he was shaking and breathing heavily The agents then pursued their investigation ofwhether or not the defendant was involved in drug activity Their actions were reasonably responsive to the circumstances justifying the stop in the first place as augmented by information gleaned during the stop See Miller 798 So 2d at 950 The physical intrusiveness of the defendant s detention did not intensify as the duration ofthe stop eapanded to accommodate the growing suspicion of criminal activity The duration of the stop was reasonable and did not transform the encounter into a de facto arrest The defendant then voluntarily consented to a search of the vehicle and the drugs were found The assignments of error are without merit REVIEW FOR ERROR The defendanYs request that we examine the record for error under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920 is unnecessary since we 2 review the record for such errars as a ma4ter of routine We are limited to reviewing errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence After a careful review of the record in these proceedings we find no reversible errors CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 6
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.
