Reset A A Font size: Print

STATE of Louisiana v. Ryan LANDRY.

No. 2015–K–0485.

Decided: August 07, 2015

After review of the relator's writ application in light of the applicable law, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the relator's motion to suppress the evidence and statements.

“[P]urely as an objective matter, the officers ultimately did nothing more than what the law entitled them to do by detaining defendant after observing him commit a misdemeanor offence in their presence and searching him for weapons and evidence, without regard to whether they had an articulable and particularized concern for their safety, and then arresting him, albeit not for the offense for which they initially had probable cause.” State v. Butler, 12–2359, p. 5 (La.5/17/13), 117 So.3d 87, 90 (finding search constitutional even if police had no actual subjective intent to arrest the defendant for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk, reversing State v. Butler, 11–0985 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/3/12, 103 So.3d 121, (pat-down of defendant being detained on an investigatory stop required some articulation of facts to justify the frisk and that the determination of whether probable cause existed at the time of the search was an objective determination)); see also State v. Green, 112425 (La.2/10/12), 79 So.3d 1013 (2012) (officer's lawful stop of defendant for commission of a misdemeanor municipal code violation offense was based on probable cause, “entitling the officer to conduct an immediate search of defendant,” reversing State v. Green, 11–1317 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/13/11) (barring sworn exceptional circumstances, a police officer does not have the authority to automatically arrest a person for municipal code violation)). Thus, under current Louisiana jurisprudence, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for a municipal code violation prohibiting those over the age of 15 from riding a bicycle on a sidewalk and, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the cell phone and gun recovered from his pants pocket after being stopped upon suspicion of two municipal code violations.

Similarly, although it is undisputed that the defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights in conjunction with the stop and search in this case or prior to being asked his name, age, and address, the police officer's field interview (recorded by his body-camera) asked for no more information than an individual might supply in response to booking questions as a routine incident of arrest and, therefore, did not amount to interrogation for Miranda purposes. State v. Smith, 00–1838, p. 4 (La.5/25/01), 785 So.2d 815, 818 (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980)). Thus, even if the defendant's age (over 15) constitutes an element of the municipal code violation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relator's motion to suppress the statements recorded by the police body-camera.


I respectfully concur in the result. I concur in the majority's decision to deny the writ; however, I would deny the writ on the showing made. The relator has failed to comply with Local Rule 24.1 Consequently, I find this Court is not in a position to review evidence from the body camera video footage, which I find necessary to address the merits of the relator's writ application.

The hearing transcript indicates that the State relied on the video footage to establish its timeline of events in argument before the trial court. Likewise, the testifying officers were questioned about the sequence of events as presented in video footage. Finally, the hearing transcript suggests that the trial court relied on the body camera video footage in denying the motion to suppress evidence and statement. Therefore, I would order the relator to comply with Local Rule 24 so that this Court may adequately review the merits of relator's application for supervisory review.

For these reasons, I find that this Court is not in a position to address the merits of the relator's writ application in its current state, and would deny the writ on the showing made.


1.  Local Rule 24—ELECTRONIC AUDIO AND VIDEO EVIDENCE1. All electronic audio and video evidence submitted to the Court shall be in the Windows Media Audio (WMA) or Windows Media Video (WMV) format to ensure that the evidence can be played on the default Windows Media Player.2. In the event that audio or video evidence cannot be converted to the required formats, the software or codec required to view the evidence must be provided. This must include a description of the software or codec and instructions on how to install and use the software. Counsel for the parties must also inform the clerk of court in writing of these circumstances within five (5) days of the lodging of the record.3. The following information must be provided with all submitted electronic evidence:Title of fileBrief description of what is contained in the fileLength of fileNumber of filesFile formatGuarantee of no virusThe antivirus software that was used to scan the files and the date of the virus definitionsIt is the exclusive responsibility of counsel for all parties to ensure that all electronic audio and video evidence works properly before submitting it to the Court.Adopted by the Court En Banc January 20, 2010Effective February 1, 2010


LOVE, J., Concurs in Result with Reasons.