State Of Louisiana VS Herman Roberson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF 2017 NO. LOUISIANA KW 1452 VERSUS HERMAN ROBERSON DEC 0 7 2017 In State Re: Judicial WHIPPLE, The WRIT suppress is Kennedy Based was 434 106, U. S. 1977) ( and 1774, 1769, per respondent that he was a possessing would gun, not 544 a the S. Ct. learned respondent then that same and DEPUTY FOR the CLERK THE OF he and 331 traffic trial. not been to admitted well as A traffic interrogation; seized. had freely 1044, the as stop does therefore, See L. Ed. 2d 161 respondent him gave Kennedy was his that he evidence in State 1073- 74, allowed CIRCUIT COURT COURT L. Ed. 2d officer point too, VGW FIRST 116 Mimms, and immediately revealed statement, WRC OF APPEAL, 54 therefore, at So. 2d 1745, that JMK COURT n. 6, 813, v. investigative requirement. 885 Corporal told 806, U. S. La. a to a police officer during a traffic stop Miranda This day. being Mirandized, would be gun the request See vehicle. Pennsylvania when evidence his 333 of admission, custodial 125 Kennedy arrested 330, Kennedy 10/ 19/ 04) , La. Respondent in statements 967, U. S. Corporal he allowed trigger 2003-- 1982 ( 1996); point further Corporal violation, 517 States, the motion for respondent, of of his vehicle That constitute not out gun. be defendant' s do got step out 89 ( granting remanded parking approach S. Ct. this Corporal by questioned 98 At is a gun, which carrying not been arrested at this had Baton East of JJ. ruling matter observed to L. Ld. 2d n. 6, 111 writs, supervisory Parish CHUTZ, court' s United v. 135 AND this ask him to curiam). stop, Respondent the on Whren 32: 143; S. Ct. and permitted identification, R. S. trial reversed, proceedings. Court, McDONALD C. J., GRANTED. BEFORE: for applying District 04- 14- 0346. No. Rouge, to Louisiana, of 19th 612 ( a v. Manning, cert. denied, 2005). convicted Miranda When felon, warnings. had purchased offered at subsequent trial. the to
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.
