STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MONTRELL JOHNSON (2026)

Defendant/Relator, Montrell Johnson (“Defendant”), seeks review of the district court's February 26, 2026 judgment which denied the motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an arrest warrant and search warrants that were signed by a juvenile court hearing officer. For the reasons that follow, we grant the writ application and affirm the judgment of the district court.¹

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was arrested and charged with second degree murder. He was fifteen years old at the time of the offense. A juvenile court hearing officer signed the arrest warrant and related search warrants from which evidence against Defendant was obtained.

On August 14, 2025, an Orleans Parish Grand Jury returned an indictment, charging Defendant with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On December 5, 2024, the hearing officer issued a warrant for Defendant's arrest. Thereafter, on December 10 and 11, 2024, and March 22, 2025, the hearing officer issued three separate search warrants, to search Defendant's residence, to obtain video footage of Defendant's residence, and to obtain a buccal swab from Defendant.

On January 23, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. Defendant alleged in the motion to suppress evidence that hearing officers were not lawfully authorized to issue arrest and search warrants. Specifically, Defendant asserted that Subsections (B) and (E) of Rule 41 § 12 of the Local Rules of Court for the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, insofar as they authorize hearing officers to issue arrest and search warrants, are null and void because they conflict with the Louisiana Children's Code, the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Louisiana Constitution.

Following a hearing, the district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant thereafter filed the instant writ application seeking supervisory review of that ruling. Because the Louisiana Supreme Court had recently granted writs in State v. Owney, 25-01398 (La. 2/12/26), 427 So.3d 737, to resolve the same legal issue presented herein, we stayed consideration of this matter pending the Supreme Court's decision in Owney.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Defendant's sole assignment of error is that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing trial court decisions on motions to suppress, the trial court's determinations of fact are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and legal decisions are reviewed de novo. State v. Hill, 25-0316, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/19/25), 418 So.3d 1119, 1127 (citation omitted). However, when the facts are uncontroverted, “the appellate court need only ‘consider whether the trial court came to the proper legal determination under the undisputed facts.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Debose, 24-0217, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/13/24), 390 So.3d 971, 977). In the instant matter, there are no underlying facts in dispute. Accordingly, we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's ruling.

DISCUSSION

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed the validity of Subsections (B) and (E) of Rule 41 § 12 of the Local Rules of Court for the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court in State v. Owney, 25-01398 (La. 6/29/26), --- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 1872165. Subsections (B) and (E) of Rule 41 § 12 provided as follows:

B. The Hearing Officer shall be subject to call for emergency hold orders and/or arrest and search warrants. Continued custody hearings, applications for arrest and search warrants, and all related matters that are to be handled by the Hearing Officer or, in his absence, the Duty Judge assigned in accordance with the schedule established by the Court En Banc or a duly appointed Judge pro tempore.

E. In cases where the issuance of a search and/or arrest warrant is required, the NOPD shall attempt to contact the hearing officer. In his absence or unavailability, the Duty Judge shall be contacted. In the absence or unavailability of the Duty or duly appointed Judge pro tempore, any Judge may be contacted.

In Owney, the Court concluded that Subsections (B) and (E) of Local Rule 41 § 12 are unconstitutional and thus null and void “as they purport to vest authority to issue arrest and search warrant in its hearing officers, as those provisions directly conflict with Louisiana Children's Code Article 423 and Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 18, 161-162, 202-203, and 931.” 25-01398, p. 10, --- So.3d ----, ----, 2026 WL 1872165, at *6.

However, the Court also found that “warrants previously issued by a hearing officer pursuant to the local rules ․ are valid[ ] and the evidence seized [pursuant to those warrants] is admissible” pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine. Id., 25-01398, p. 8, --- So.3d ----, ----, 2026 WL 1872165, at *5. The Court held the following:

The application of the de facto [officer] doctrine is appropriate even where, as here, the underlying grant of authority is deemed legislatively infirm. In this case, the hearing officer appointed by the court acted in reliance on an apparently valid local rule by discharging duties under that rule when he issued the arrest and search warrants. He acted in full public view and presented no appearance of being an intruder or usurper. See [State v. ]O'Reilly, 00-2864, p. 12 [(La. 5/15/01)], 785 So. 2d [768,] at 777 (quoting Ryder [v. U.S.], 515 U.S. [177,] at 180[, 115 S.Ct. 2031, 2034, 132 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995)]) (“to satisfy the de facto officer doctrine the officer must be in the unobstructed possession of an office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper.”). The warrant-issuing authority purportedly granted by Local Rule 41 § 12(B) and (E) had not been judicially declared invalid when the warrants at issue were signed. The hearing officer was, at minimum, a de facto officer acting under the color of right. The warrants issued pursuant to that authority are valid and may not now be set aside on the basis of the local rule's invalidity alone. Consequently, both defendant's arrest and the seizure of evidence under the authority of the search warrant are likewise valid.

Id., 25-01398, p. 10, --- So.3d ----, ----, 2026 WL 1872165, at *5.

Owney is dispositive in the case sub judice. As in Owney, an Orleans Parish Juvenile Court hearing officer issued Defendant's arrest and search warrants pursuant to Local Rule 41 § 12(B) and (E), before those provisions were judicially declared invalid. Although the hearing officer lacked de jure authority to issue the warrants, the hearing officer acted under color of the then existing local rule and therefore qualified as a de facto officer. Accordingly, the warrants may not be set aside solely because the provisions purporting to authorize their issuance were subsequently declared null and void. Defendant's arrest was lawful, and the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrants is admissible. The district court therefore properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we grant the writ application and affirm the district court judgment denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   This Court has supervisory jurisdiction over cases arising within its circuit. La. Const. art. V, § 10(A).

Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano