STATE OF LOUISIANA v. VALDEZ BROOKS (2026)

The State of Louisiana (“the State”) seeks review of the district court's June 23, 2026 ruling that: (1) found no probable cause as to Counts 3 through 8; (2) suppressed evidence seized at 313 West Celestine Street in St. Bernard Parish; (3) suppressed any statements attributed to Defendant/Respondent, Valdez Brooks (“Defendant”); and (4) modified the conditions of Defendant's bond. For the following reasons, we grant the writ; grant relief in part, and deny relief in part; and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 6, 2026, Defendant was charged by bill of indictment with possession with intent to distribute marijuana weighing more than two and one-half pounds, in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(B)(2)(b) (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute tapentadol weighing more than twenty-eight grams, in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(B)(1)(b) (Count 2); possession of codeine, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C) (Count 3); illegal possession of a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance, in in violation of La. R.S. 14:95(E) (Count 4); illegal possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of La. R.S. 14:69.1 (Count 5); conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous substance: tapentadol, greater than twenty-eight grams, in violation of La. R.S. 40: (979) 966 (Count 6); conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous substance: marijuana, greater than two and one-half pounds, in violation of La. R.S. 40: (979) 966 (Count 7); transactions involving proceeds from drug offenses, in violation of La. R.S. 40:1041 (Count 8); and possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of La. R.S. 40:1023 (Count 9). Defendant pled not guilty to all charges.

Defendant filed several motions on April 13, 2026, including an omnibus motion for discovery; motion to preserve evidence; motion for suppression of statements, evidence and identifications; and motion for preliminary hearing. On June 8, 2026, Defendant filed a particularized motion to suppress evidence and statements. The district court conducted a hearing on June 11, 2026, and, at the hearing's conclusion, took the matter under advisement and afforded the parties an opportunity to submit further briefing.

During the hearing, Trooper Nicholas Dowdle (“Trooper Dowdle”), who worked for the Louisiana State Police (“LSP”) in the Criminal Investigation Division, testified. According to Trooper Dowdle, in December 2025, the narcotics section of the St. Bernard Sheriff's Office provided LSP with information from a cooperating individual that Defendant and Yasmine Sylvester (“Ms. Sylvester”) were selling tapentadol pills in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. State police thereafter conducted database inquiries and coordinated with federal agencies concerning packages originating from India and addressed to locations – 2331 St. Roch Avenue (Orleans Parish) and 313 West Celestine Street (St. Bernard Parish) – associated with Defendant and Ms. Sylvester. Federal agents intercepted and confirmed the contents of packages as tapentadol; one package addressed to “Brooks R.” at 2331 St. Roch Avenue was opened, reassembled, and used in a controlled delivery operation.

The LSP surveilled the St. Roch Avenue and West Celestine Street residences and observed Defendant leave the West Celestine Street residence, retrieve a backpack from a vehicle near St. Claude Avenue, proceed to the St. Roch Avenue residence, and later engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. Following the controlled delivery and further investigation, Trooper Dowdle obtained and executed a warrant at the St. Roch Avenue residence, where the following items were recovered: marijuana, tapentadol pills, packaging materials, backpacks, and a firearm reported stolen in December 2025. Trooper Dowdle explained that clothing and paperwork identified the bedroom in which some of these items were recovered as Defendant's bedroom. LSP also searched a white Acura associated with Defendant after a trained narcotics canine gave a “positive alert” and recovered a codeine bottle with the patient label removed, along with ziplock bags. Defendant was arrested. Trooper Dowdle further testified that Defendant made no statements.

The investigation also led to Ms. Sylvester's arrest in St. Bernard Parish, where law enforcement recovered tapentadol and cellular telephones from her person. Trooper Dowdle obtained a warrant for Ms. Sylvester's phones, and extracted text messages from one of her phones showed messages concerning drug possession and distribution.

On June 23, 2026, the district court granted the motion to suppress only as to the evidence recovered from the West Celestine Street residence; it denied suppression as to the St. Roch Avenue search, the Acura search, and the package-related evidence. The district court also granted the motion to suppress statements, notwithstanding Trooper Dowdle's testimony that Defendant made no statements. At the preliminary examination, the district court found probable cause as to Counts 1, 2, and 9, but found no probable cause as to Counts 3 through 8. The district court reasoned, in relevant part, that the State had not shown Defendant's knowledge of the codeine in the vehicle or of the firearm's stolen status; had not established the requisite nexus between the firearm and controlled dangerous substances; had not sufficiently established the alleged conspiracies; and had not presented evidence of a financial transaction involving drug proceeds. The district court also modified Defendant's bond conditions ex parte to permit him to leave his residence from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.

The State now seeks supervisory review of the district court's June 23, 2026 ruling, specifically challenging the no probable cause findings on Counts 3 through 8, the suppression of the West Celestine Street evidence and unspecified statements, and the bond modification.

DISCUSSION

In its writ application, the State asserts four assignments of error: (1) the district court erred in finding that probable cause did not exist to arrest Defendant on all counts; (2) the district court erred in suppressing evidence which was seized pursuant to a lawful, valid search warrant for an address outside of his jurisdiction; (3) it was error for the district court to suppress all statements when none have been identified as ripe for suppression; and (4) the modification of the Defendant's bond condition by the district court, requested ex parte by the Defendant, was improper.

Probable Cause

As its first assignment of error, the State argues that probable cause existed to arrest the Defendant on all courts. The district court found no probable cause as to six of the nine charged offenses. A preliminary examination is limited to determining whether probable cause exists to hold an accused on the charged offense; it is not an adjudication of guilt or a determination of the ultimate validity of the charge. La. C.Cr.P. art. 296; State v. Baham, 2013-0901, pp. 3-4 (La. 6/28/13), 117 So.3d 505, 507. “Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to justify a man of average caution in the belief that the person has committed a crime.” Baham, 2013-0901, p. 3, 117 So.3d at 507. The State need not present all of its evidence at this stage, nor must it prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, it need only make a prima facie showing. Id.; State v. Lewis, 2009-0350, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/16/09), 28 So.3d 548, 552. When the evidence does not support probable cause, the appropriate remedy is release from custody or bail – not dismissal of the prosecution. Lewis, 2009-0350, p. 5, 28 So.3d at 552.

In Baham, the Louisiana Supreme Court applied this low threshold in reversing both the suppression ruling and the trial court's finding of no probable cause. There, officers executed search warrants after receiving information from a confidential informant and conducting surveillance; the search yielded a firearm, marijuana, and cash. Baham, 2013-0901, pp. 1-3, 117 So.3d at 506. Although the trial court found that the police could not positively link the recovered evidence to the defendant, the Supreme Court held that the State was required only to adduce prima facie evidence sufficient to justify a person of average caution in the belief that the defendant committed the charged offenses. Id., pp. 3-4, 117 So.3d at 507.

Applying that standard here, the unsuppressed evidence furnished a prima facie basis for Counts 3, 4, and 5. The evidence established that Defendant drove the Acura shortly before officers recovered from that vehicle a codeine bottle with its patient label removed and baggies. The evidence further established that narcotics, packaging materials, and a stolen firearm were recovered from a bedroom reasonably identified as Defendant's bedroom through, among other evidence, male clothing and paperwork found there. At the preliminary examination stage, this evidence supports probable cause for possession of codeine, illegal carrying of a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and illegal possession of a stolen firearm. The trial court erred to the extent it required proof sufficient to resolve conclusively the issues of knowledge and possession. Whether Defendant knew the firearm was stolen is a matter he may litigate at a later stage; it does not negate the State's prima facie showing at the preliminary examination.

The same standard supports probable cause for Counts 6 and 7, the conspiracy charges. Criminal conspiracy is “the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime.” La. R.S. 14:26(A). The record contains evidence of a relationship and coordinated activity between Defendant and Ms. Sylvester, text messages concerning drug possession and distribution, packages of suspected tapentadol addressed to the two residences, and Defendant's travel between those residences. Although the district court excluded the evidence recovered from West Celestine and declined to consider the extraction from Ms. Sylvester's cellular telephone, the State's prima facie showing on these counts does not depend solely upon that evidence. The remaining evidence of the parties’ relationship, their coordinated conduct, and the contraband recovered from Defendant's residence was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause at this preliminary stage.

We reach a different conclusion as to Count 8, transactions involving proceeds from drug offenses. Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:1041 prohibits a person from knowingly or intentionally conducting “a financial transaction involving proceeds known to be derived from a [controlled dangerous substance violation] when the transaction is designed, in whole or in part, to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds”, or to avoid a reporting requirement. Although officers recovered a significant amount of currency and observed hand-to-hand transactions, the State did not present prima facie evidence that Defendant knowingly conducted a financial transaction involving proceeds derived from a controlled dangerous substance violation. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding no probable cause as to Count 8.

Therefore, the district court erred in finding no probable cause as to Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The ruling is reversed as to those counts and affirmed as to Count 8.

Evidence Seized at 313 West Celestine Street

The State seeks review of the district court's ruling suppressing evidence recovered from the St. Bernard Parish residence, including Ms. Sylvester's cellular telephones. In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court's factual determinations absent an abuse of discretion, while reviewing its legal conclusions de novo. State v. Candebat, 2013-0780, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/14), 133 So.3d 304, 308 (citing State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 4 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577,580).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable unless justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Surtain, 2009-1895, p. 7 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 1037, 1043. “On the trial of a motion to suppress ․, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the ground of his motion, except that the state shall have the burden of proving the admissibility of a purported confession or statement by the defendant or of any evidence seized without a warrant.” Moreover, a defendant seeking suppression must first establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. State v. Moultrie, 2015-2144, p. 3 (La. 6/29/17), 224 So.3d 349, 352 (per curiam).

Here, the district court suppressed the evidence recovered from 313 West Celestine Street in St. Bernard Parish, including Ms. Sylvester's cellular telephones, based on the State's failure to introduce the search warrant at the suppression hearing. The record, however, reflects no substantive challenge to the existence of that warrant or to the probable cause supporting the search. Rather, Defendant's challenge rests solely on the State's failure to introduce the warrant after representing that it was not relying on the evidence recovered from the St. Bernard Parish residence at the hearing.

The investigation linked the West Celestine and St. Roch Avenue residences from its inception. The confidential informant information identified both Defendant and Ms. Sylvester, and the ensuing investigation involved the monitoring of packages addressed to the two locations. Thus, the investigation supporting the warrants for the Orleans Parish residence also supplied a factual nexus to the West Celestine residence. Under these circumstances, the absence of the West Celestine warrant from the suppression hearing exhibits, without a showing that the warrant did not exist or that it lacked probable cause, did not furnish a basis to suppress the cellular telephones recovered during the search. Accordingly, the district court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained from 313 West Celestine Street, including Ms. Sylvester's cellular telephones, and that portion of the ruling is reversed.

Suppression of Statements

The State introduced no statements made by Defendant at the motion hearing. In its writ application, the State observes that the defense motion did not particularize any statement ripe for suppression and asserts that, should further investigation reveal that Defendant made a statement, the admissibility of that statement would be subject to a suppression hearing. The record supports the State's position. Trooper Dowdle testified that Defendant made no statement, and the trial court likewise acknowledged that no statements had been introduced. Thus, the ruling suppressing statements was premature. A suppression ruling must concern identified evidence subject to exclusion; it cannot operate as an advisory, open-ended exclusion of unknown future evidence. Should the State later seek to introduce a statement attributed to Defendant, it remains subject to the applicable notice and admissibility requirements, and Defendant may timely litigate any suppression challenge. Accordingly, the portion of the June 23, 2026 ruling suppressing unspecified statements is reversed.

Bond Conditions

Finally, the State contends that the district court improperly modified Defendant's bond conditions. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 319 permits the court having trial jurisdiction, upon a showing of good cause and on its own motion or on motion of the State or defendant, to increase or reduce bail or to require new or additional security. In the matter herein, the State objected when Defendant orally sought modification and requested an opportunity for the assigned prosecutor to be heard; defense counsel likewise indicated a willingness to address the matter at a later hearing. The record does not reflect that a contradictory hearing preceded the modification. Cf. State v. Neisler, 633 So.2d 1224, 1226 (La. 1994) (holding modification of bail unauthorized where no contradictory hearing was held). Accordingly, we vacate the modification of Defendant's bond conditions and remand this matter to the district court for a contradictory hearing, at which the parties may present their respective positions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above and foregoing reasons, the State's writ is granted; relief is granted in part and denied in part; and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the district court's June 23, 2026 ruling finding no probable cause as to Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is reversed; the finding of no probable cause as to Count 8 is affirmed. The ruling suppressing unspecified statements is reversed. Relief is denied as to the ruling suppressing evidence seized at 313 West Celestine Street. The modification of Defendant's bond conditions is vacated, and the matter is remanded for a contradictory hearing on that issue.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART; REMANDED

Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott