Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-26-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF LOUISIANA Vs. IRVIN COMPASS
Case Number: 2019-K-0837
Judge: Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
Court: COURT OF APPEAL
FOURTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Leon Cannizzaro, Jr.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Donna Andrieu
CHIEF OF APPEALS
Irena Zajickova
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation concerning a review of the trial court’s ruling which granted a Motion to Suppress and its finding of no probable cause in Louisiana?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
The defendant, Irvin Compass, was charged by a June 21, 2019 bill of
information with three counts: illegal carrying of a weapon, a violation of La. R.S.
14:95 (second offense); possession of marijuana, a violation of La. R.S. 40:966
C(2); and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, a violation of La.
R.S. 40:1023. Mr. Compass entered a plea of not guilty on July 15, 2019. He
then filed an omnibus motion for suppression of statements, evidence and
identifications on August 15, 2019.
The trial court conducted a hearing on August 22, 2019 and held the matter
open so that a body camera video could be reviewed. On September 24, 2019, the
2
trial court ruled, granting the motion to suppress and finding no probable cause.
Notably, the trial judge indicated that she “did not watch the video; because . . . it
was [not] formally submitted in evidence.” Paradoxically, the trial court also
stated that it based its ruling upon “the officer - - the witness’ testimony [not being]
credible, based on the body cam and the testimony about the body cam.”
The State timely filed an application for a writ of supervisory review.
DISCUSSION
At the outset, we note that the trial court is afforded much discretion with
respect to its ruling on a motion to suppress. See State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.
7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577, 581 (“a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence
is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion.”).
Under the circumstances of this case, however, we find that the trial court abused
its discretion in granting the motion to suppress and in finding that the police
officers lacked probable cause for Mr. Compass’s arrest.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State called Officer Mario
Bravo, who was assigned to the First District Task Force on February 16, 2019. At
that time, he was in communication with Officer April Augustine and Officer
Darius McFarland, who advised him by radio transmission that there was a
motorbike being operated in a reckless manner. Officer Bravo located the
motorbike at a gas station and proceeded to arrest Mr. Compass. Officer Bravo’s
partner, Duncan Chauffe, provided Miranda warnings,1 after which Mr. Compass’s
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
3
backpack was searched and a pistol, marijuana, a digital scale, and plastic bags
were discovered. Officer Bravo ran Mr. Compass’s name and discovered that he
had a prior conviction for “carrying a firearm.”
In his questioning on cross-examination, counsel for Mr. Compass attempted
to elicit testimony from Officer Bravo suggesting that the stop of Mr. Compass
was a pretext for searching Mr. Compass.2 However, Officer Bravo was steadfast
in his testimony that Mr. Compass was arrested for “operating his motorbike in a
reckless manner.” He repeated this fact throughout his testimony and answered in
the affirmative to the question of whether his testimony was “that Officer
McFarland told [him], via radio, that: book him on reckless operation; because he
was recklessly operating his motorbike.”
While Officer Bravo indicated that he was wearing a body camera at the
time of this incident,3 he testified that the video captured only the scene at the gas
station where Mr. Compass was arrested.
The basis of Mr. Compass’s motion to suppress is not set forth in his
omnibus motion to suppress, which generically requests the suppression of
statements, physical evidence and identifications, without alleging any facts upon
which the motion is based. However, his argument at the conclusion of the hearing
was, first, that Officer Bravo “was never told by Officer McFarland that Mr.
2 Notably, “[p]olice officers may make an initial traffic stop after observing a traffic infraction, even if the stop is a pretext to investigate for controlled dangerous substances.” State v. Lewis, 12-0902, p. 8 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/27/13), 121 So.3d 128, 135. 3 The body camera video is not part of the record before the Court.
4
Compass was recklessly operating his vehicle,” an allegation that is clearly
contrary to Officer Bravo’s testimony.
Mr. Compass’s argument appears to rest on his contention that the body
camera video did not confirm that Officer McFarland “state[d] that [Mr. Compass]
was bobbing and weaving out of traffic; he placed anybody[’s] life in danger, or he
was riding recklessly.” Given that Officer Bravo testified that the body camera
video only reflected the events at the gas station, and he was directed to arrest Mr.
Compass for recklessly operating his motorbike before he arrived at the gas station,
the video camera footage is of no consequence.
The real issue before this Court concerns whether Officer Bravo properly
arrested Mr. Compass based on what had been relayed to him from Officer
McFarland. Our jurisprudence on this issue is clear. The Louisiana Supreme Court
has indicated that “[t]he determination of whether probable cause exists for an
arrest or reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is a purely objective inquiry
that takes into account ‘all of the information known collectively to the law
enforcement personnel involved in the investigation.’” State v. Elliott, 09-1727, p.
5 (La. 3/16/10), 35 So.3d 247, 251 (citations omitted). The Elliott Court further
indicated that “[p]robable cause can rest upon the collective knowledge of the
police, rather than solely on that of the officer who actually makes the arrest.”
Id., citing United States v. Butler, 74 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir.1996). Certainly, if a
police officer may make an arrest based on information from a reliable confidential
5
informant,4 an arrest based on information relayed by a fellow officer is equally
permissible.
Thus, although Officer Bravo did not personally observe Mr. Compass’s
reckless operation of his motorbike, he could rely on that information which was
relayed to him by Officer McFarland in making his arrest.5
It is evident, from the trial court’s comment in granting the motion to
suppress that it was “based on the body cam and the testimony about the body
cam,” that the ruling was made because the body cam did not include Officer
McFarland’s reporting Mr. Compass’s reckless operation of his motorbike to
Officer Bravo. Again, this information was relayed to Officer Bravo before the
video footage began. Likewise, while the trial court noted that Officer Bravo’s
testimony “was not credible,” the basis of such finding is not supported by the
record. Officer Bravo’s testimony that he arrested Mr. Compass based on Officer
McFarland’s observation of him operating his motorbike recklessly was clear and
uncontradicted.
Outcome: For these reasons, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in
granting the motion to suppress and in finding no probable cause. We, therefore,
reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand this matter for further proceedings.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: