STATE v. TENNER (2026)

Writ granted. Our Constitution guarantees, and this court has long upheld that, at the very minimum, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion of a person's criminality before he may accost that person and restrain their freedom to walk away. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 215.1; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Belton, 441 So.2d 1195, 1198 (La. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953, 104 S.Ct. 2158, 80 L.Ed.2d 543 (1984); State v. Carter, 20-1193 (La. 1/26/21), 309 So.3d 333, 336; State v. Williams, 421 So.2d 874, 876 (La. 1982). A reviewing court must look at the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether the detaining officer had sufficient facts within his knowledge to justify the infringement of a citizen's rights. State v. Huntley, 97-965 (La. 3/13/98), 708 So.2d 1048, 1049; State v. Ratliff, 98-94 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/19/99), 737 So.2d 252, 253–54. A hunch or suspicion of illegal activity is insufficient to establish reasonable grounds to stop a person. State v. Basile, 97-1162 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/24/97), 700 So.2d 1062, writ denied, 97-2503 (La. 12/19/97), 706 So.2d 455; State v. Purvis, 96-787 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 567. Rather, an officer “must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La. 9/19/97), 699 So.2d 879, 881.

Moreover, “[a]ny evidence produced as a result of an illegal search and seizure is tainted and thus inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” State v. Shivers, 346 So.2d 657, 661 (La. 1977); State v. Melbert, 140 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/30/94), 649 So.2d 740, 744. This court has consistently found that the seizure of a citizen for any period of time absent reasonable suspicion is a violation of the right to privacy and requires the exclusion of any evidence derived from the unreasonable seizure, invasion of privacy, or stop. See, e.g., State v. Salinas, 17-485 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/6/18), 251 So.3d 1166; State v. Taylor, 12-25 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 522, 529; State v. Robertson, 97-2960 (La. 10/20/98), 721 So.2d 1268, 1270.

It cannot be disputed that a seizure occurred in this case. Nor does the State dispute that the officers’ only suspicion did not relate to the defendant, but rather to one of his companions. The officer admitted at the suppression hearing that the defendant was not observed committing any crimes or engaging in any suspicious behavior and that further investigation revealed that he had no prior arrests or criminal history. Nor were there any allegations that these events occurred in a high crime area. Based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, reasonable suspicion did not exist. The officer's seizure of the defendant was therefore illegal and any evidence derived from it must be suppressed, including the evidence discovered when the defendant's backpack fell from his shoulder as a result of being grabbed and pushed against the rear of a vehicle. The judgment of the district court denying the motion to suppress is reversed. The motion to suppress is granted and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PER CURIAM

Penzato, J., dissents and would deny.