STATE v. ARDISON (2020)

Writ application granted in part. Remanded. See per curiam.

Writ granted in part. Defendant's convictions were not final when Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies to any non-unanimous verdicts in these proceedings. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana. The remand order does not pertain to defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies, which was by unanimous verdict. The application is otherwise denied.

It has been 52 years since the Supreme Court decided Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). In those 52 years this court and the United States Supreme Court have repeatedly held that the Constitution still protects citizens against arbitrary detention and search by police absent an officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on articulated facts. Yet courts in practice still afford fewer protections to people who live in “high crime areas.”

While the officers in this case lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop when they initially approached the defendant and asked him questions, the law permitted them to ask questions without violating his Fourth Amendment protections. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). But it also permitted the defendant to “ignore the police and go about his business.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000); State v. Neyrey, 383 So.2d 1222, 1224 (La. 1979). The record suggests the defendant did nothing more than ignore the police.

The fact that any defendant ignored the police in a “high crime area” should not automatically translate their otherwise unremarkable and legally permissible actions into suspicious ones. Nor should an individual officer's familiarity with a citizen from prior “encounters.” Community police initiatives designed to increase police presence and accessibility in economically deprived or high crime neighborhoods should not later provide reasonable suspicion when officers encounter those citizens whom the programs were designed to assist.

I agree with Chief Judge Williams’ dissent below: “The result of the trial court's ruling and this court's decision is to signal that a person who happens to reside in an area labeled as a high-crime zone has a reduced expectation of privacy and fewer rights than those who reside in low-crime areas.” State v. Ardison, ––– So.3d ––––, 2019 WL 10303729, 52,739 (La. App. Cir. 6/26/19).

This is not equal protection under law.

Johnson, C.J., would additionally grant as to the suppression issue and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., would grant as to the suppression issue. McCallum, J., recused.