STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DESHAWN DORSEY (2026)

Relator, State of Louisiana, seeks to invoke this Court's supervisory jurisdiction to review the trial court's decision to hold open the September 17, 2026 hearing of Mr. Dorsey's motions to suppress statement and evidence as well as a preliminary examination as to probable cause for arrest. Additionally, the State petitions the court for a stay of all proceedings pending this Court's ruling on its writ application. For the reasons that follow, we grant Relator's writ application; however, deny relief and deny Relator's request for a stay.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Officer Ricky Koen, testified during the Motion to Suppress and Preliminary examination hearings that while conducting surveillance, by way of watching surveillance cameras in the French Quarter, he observed Mr. Dorsey seated at the intersection of Common and Carondelet streets. A black male in a wheelchair approached Mr. Dorsey. Officer Koen testified that the gentleman in the wheel chair tossed U.S. currency near where Mr. Dorsey was seated; at which point Mr. Dorsey reached into his pocket, retrieved what Officer Koen testified he believed to be narcotics, and placed it in the hand of the man in the wheelchair. Officer Koen notified members of the “Bourbon Promenade” Unit of his observations and an arrest of Mr. Dorsey was perfected.

Officer Koen informed the court that he was not present during the arrest of Mr. Dorsey. The State showed Officer Koen body camera footage taken at the station from the body worn camera ¹ of Officer Levi Atkin.² Officer Koen identified himself talking to Mr. Dorsey in a frame from the video footage.

Defense counsel objected to the State's introduction of Officer Atkin's body worn camera (“Officer Atkin's video”) into evidence, contending that Officer Koen could not authenticate the body worn camera in which he merely appears in a frame. The trial court admitted Officer Atkin's video into evidence “with the caveat that the State will be limited in its presentation to portions in which Officer Koen can be cross-examined.” The State objected.

On cross-examination, Officer Koen admitted that he did not read Mr. Dorsey his Miranda rights and was not present for the reading. On re-direct examination, Officer Koen conveyed to the court that Officer Atkin informed him that he read Mr. Dorsey his Miranda rights.

At the conclusion of Officer Koen's testimony, the State requested, over defense objections, to leave the hearing open to obtain the testimony of Officer Atkin.

MR. ALTERMAN:

But, yes, Judge, I would request at this time a recess so I can get Officer Atkins or another appropriate officer at the time under subpoena for the continuation of the motion hearing specifically for the Court's evidentiary ruling today.

Thereafter, the State filed its notice of intent to seek writs.

This Court ordered the trial court to issue a per curiam as to the proceedings that occurred on September 17, 2026. Mr. Dorsey was also ordered to file an opposition. The writ application has been supplemented to include the trial court's per curiam and Mr. Dorsey's opposition.

DISCUSSION

The State argues the trial court erred in holding the motion to suppress hearing open to obtain the testimony of Officer Atkin. The State contends it should have been allowed to publish Officer Atkin's video in its entirety through the testimony offered by Officer Koen.

Prior to the trial court granting the State's request to recess the hearings, the trial court made it clear that the merits of the pre-trial motions are in abeyance pending the presentation of additional witnesses by the State.

MR. ALTERMAN:

And, Judge, I will be prepared to argue evidence today with what was seen on the video. But because of Your Honor's rulings for the totality of the circumstances, I would just say that the entirety of the motion hearing is continued to that date. [September 29, 2026.].

THE COURT:

I mean, I could rule on probable cause and probably [sic] evidence today. But it was another officer that recovered it according to Officer Koen. But we know that hearsay is admissible. So whatever y'all want to do. We can wait until the 29th so I can just rule on everything at the same time.

MR. ALTERMAN:

Okay, Judge. I prefer that.

THE COURT:

Because who knows? I may hear something from Atkins that makes me change my leanings on evidence and PC. So we'll just wait until then.

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. Candebat, 2013-0780, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/14), 133 So.3d 304, 306 (citing State v. Wells, 2008-2262 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577). State v. McKey, 2024-0491 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/21/24), 400 So. 3d 1201, 1203, writ denied, 2024-01395 (La. 1/28/25), 399 So. 3d 419

At this juncture in Mr. Dorsey's pre-trial proceedings, no ruling or judgment exists to initiate a review for abuse of discretion nor to conduct a de novo review for error of law. The colloquy between the State and trial court as to the issue of limitations on the admissibility of Officer Atkin's video has not yet been resolved. The record reveals that although the trial court discussed a defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses, it did not limit the publication of Officer Atkin's video on Sixth Amendment grounds. The trial court addresses this argument in its per curiam:

In the assignments of error, the State asks this court to rule on whether the Confrontation Clause applies to a pre-trial hearing on a motion to suppress. This is not the issue, nor the reasoning for the court's ruling․

This court is aware that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to this pretrial hearing, hence, the ruling in this matter citing nothing about the Confrontation Clause, but the issue of a lack of personal knowledge․

The sole reason no ruling or judgment has been issued as to Mr. Dorsey's motions to suppress and his preliminary examination as to probable cause for arrest is because the trial court agreed to recess the matter to afford the State the opportunity to present Officer Atkin as a witness. Accordingly, all evidentiary rulings on Mr. Dorsey's motions to suppress and probable cause for arrest will be rendered on September 29, 2026.

The final matter this court would like to address is the professionalism of the attorney in both the trial and appellate courts. The trial court's per curiam expressed its disappointment in the misrepresentation in the application for supervisory jurisdiction to this court. The trial court wrote: This court finds it a contemptible action for an officer of the court to make material misrepresentations on matters that are easily proven by a transcript. We agree with the trial court.

This Court is alarmed at the State's acerbic characterization in its writ application of the trial court's discussion and the court's decision to continue the preliminary hearing. A review of the hearing transcript further reveals that counsel for the State teetered on the brink of outright disrespect in his interactions with the presiding judge. We caution counsel to be mindful of the Code of Professionalism, formulated by the Louisiana State Bar Association and approved by the Louisiana Supreme Court, namely to conduct oneself with dignity, civility and courtesy, and to refrain from engaging in any demeaning or derogatory commentary. Zealous advocacy is to be commended; incivility is not.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing reasons, we grant supervisory review of the State's writ application. The merits of the State's writ application and request for a stay are denied.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; STAY DENIED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Officer Atkin's video was identified as State's Exhibit 2.

2.   Officer Akin is sometimes referenced in the body of the opinion as Officer Atkins.

Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins