State of Louisiana v. Keith Brumfield

Metairie, Louisiana criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with disturbing the peace.

Defendant asked a woman in another car for her phone number.



Defendant moved to suppress the state's evidence because the officer conducted a warrantless stop of his vehicle.





Deputy Andrew Scott with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office testified that he received a call to respond to a complaint of harassment at 4321 Hessmer Street in Metairie. He explained that an anonymous female complained that an individual in a white Mitsubishi sedan harassed her on the street. On cross-examination, Deputy Scott further explained that the anonymous woman indicated that she felt uncomfortable because the person in the vehicle yelled at her from the window to ask for her phone number.



Deputy Scott agreed that when he located the vehicle, he did not observe any traffic violations or illegal activity prior to conducting the investigatory stop of the vehicle. Deputy Scott testified that after the vehicle stopped, the driver opened the driver's side door. As the deputy approached the vehicle, he detected the odor of marijuana. He also saw a small bag of marijuana in plain view in the bottom compartment of the driver's side door. After conducting a search of the vehicle, the officer located a handgun under the driver's seat, additional marijuana in the back of the car, and a blister pack of tapentadol in the center console.



Following the deputy's testimony, defense counsel asked the trial court to suppress the evidence because Terry v. Ohio[1] requires reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed (or about to be committed) in order to conduct an investigatory stop. Defense counsel argued that an anonymous call from a female stating that she was uncomfortable because someone asked for her phone number is not a crime. She further argued that the officer admitted that he stopped the vehicle without observing any traffic violations or criminal activity. After the conclusion of oral argument, the trial court denied the motion to suppress finding that when the officer got the call about the suspicious person, he believed a crime had been committed.





In its opposition to the writ application, the State agrees that a man asking a woman for her phone number is not in and of itself illegal. However, the State contends that the complaint of harassing behavior was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold of reasonable suspicion that defendant may have committed a violation of La. R.S. 14:103(A)(2), disturbing the peace.[2] The State further recognizes that anonymous complaints are generally looked at with skepticism, but argues that this situation is distinguishable because the anonymous complaint comes from the person who was the subject of the alleged harassing conduct.



* * *





Both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Roche, 05-237 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/06), 928 So.2d 761, 765, writ denied, 06-1566 (La. 1/8/07), 948 So.2d 120. Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable per se unless justified by one of the specific exceptions to the warrant requirement. Id. In a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant, the State bears the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State v. Lane, 09-179 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/29/09), 24 So.3d 920, 923, writ denied, 09-2360 (La. 5/21/10), 36 So.3d 226 (citing La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(D)).



4



In Terry v. Ohio, supra, the United States Supreme Court recognized the investigatory stop as an exception to the warrant requirement. State in Interest of T.L., 17-579 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/21/18), 240 So.3d 310, 323. In Louisiana, a law enforcement officer may stop and question a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense. Id.; La. C.Cr.P. art. 215.1(A). Reasonable suspicion to stop is something less than the probable cause required for an arrest, and the reviewing court must look to the facts of each case to determine whether a detaining officer had knowledge of sufficient facts and circumstances to justify an infringement of the suspect's rights. State v. Bell, 14-1046 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/15/15), 169 So.3d 417, 422. The determination of reasonable grounds for an investigatory stop does not rest on the officer's subjective beliefs or attitudes, but is dependent on an objective evaluation of all the circumstances known to the officer at the time of his challenged action. Lane, 24 So.3d at 924. In determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but to the specific reasonable inferences that he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. State v. Interest of T.L., 240 So.3d at 323.



An anonymous tip may provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop if it accurately predicts future conduct in sufficient detail to support a reasonable belief that the informant had reliable information regarding the suspect's illegal activity. State v. Smith, 00-1838 (La. 5/25/01), 785 So.2d 815, 816, citing Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). Predictive ability is not always necessary; a non-predictive anonymous tip, coupled with police corroboration or independent police observation of unusual suspicious activity, can provide the police with the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect. State v. Triche, 03-149 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/03), 848 So.2d 80, 85, writ denied, 03-1979 (La. 1/16/04), 864 So.2d 625.



5



"[I]f a tip has a relatively low degree of reliability, more information will be required to establish the requisite quantum of suspicion than would be required if the tip were more reliable." Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. at 330, 110 S.Ct. at 2416. Whether an anonymous tip establishes reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop is considered under the totality of the circumstances. State in Interest of T.L., 240 So.3d at 324. The sufficiency of an anonymous tip under Terry is determined by the reliability of its assertion of illegality and not just its tendency to identify a determinate person. Id.



In Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 134 S.Ct. 1683 1692, 188 L.Ed.2d 680 (2014), the United States Supreme Court ruled that an anonymous tip provided officers with reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. Officers received information from an anonymous 911 caller that she had been run off the road by a truck. The caller provided identifying information about the truck, and after conducting an investigatory stop, officers detected the smell of marijuana. A search of the truck bed revealed 30 pounds of marijuana. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress, and the appellate court affirmed...



State v. Brumfield, 24-K-532 (La. App. Nov 18, 2024)

Application for a writ was denied.