Opinion
23-K-198
05-19-2023
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JALIN COSSE IN RE STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., DIVISION "P", NUMBER 22-3722
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
WRIT GRANTED
Relator, State of Louisiana seeks review of the 24th Judicial District Court's March 15, 2023 ruling which granted one of four oral motions to suppress made by Defendant, Jalin Cosse. On Setember 8, 2022, Defendant was indicted for one count of La. R.S. 14:30 - first degree murder and two counts of La. R.S. 14:27:30 - attempted first degree murder. The State claims that the trial court erred when it granted Defendant's motion to suppress the search warrant for his blue Apple iPhone, finding inadequate probable cause in the affidavit to support the issuance of the search warrant. The State immediately objected to the ruling and informed the court of its intent to take a writ. On March 21, 2023, the State filed its notice of intent to take supervisory writs.
When evidence is seized pursuant to a search warrant, the defendant bears the burden of proof at a hearing on his motion to suppress that evidence. La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); State v. Falcon, 13-849 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/12/14), 138 So.3d 79, 88, writ denied, 14-769 (La. 11/14/14), 152 So.3d 877. The trial court is afforded great discretion in ruling on a motion to suppress, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Youngblood, 21-670 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/3/22), 2022 WL 679997, at *1, writ denied, 22-569 (La. 6/1/22), 338 So.3d 494.
As a general rule, searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a validly executed search warrant or arrest warrant. State v. Every, 19-40 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/23/19), 274 So.3d 770, 776, writ denied, 19-1048 (La. 10/1/19), 280 So.3d 159; State v. Gaubert, 14-396 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/14), 167 So.3d 110, 114. The United States Supreme Court has held that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Riley, 573 U.S. at 401, 134 S.Ct. at 2477. A search warrant may be issued only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of a magistrate, by the affidavit of a credible person, particularly describing the person or place to be searched and the things to be seized. La. C.Cr.P. art. 162; State v. Aston, 12-955 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/4/13), 125 So.3d 1148, 1156, writ denied, 13-2374 (La. 3/21/14), 135 So.3d 618. Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists when the facts and circumstances, within the affiant's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that evidence or contraband may be found at the place that is to be searched. Every, 274 So.3d at 780.
A magistrate must be given enough information to make an independent judgment that probable cause exists to issue a warrant. Green, 831 So.2d at 968. The United States Supreme Court held that "[s]ufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others." State v. Brown, 09-722 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/10/10), 32 So.3d 939, 950. Moreover, the process of determining probable cause simply requires that enough information be presented to the issuing magistrate to enable the magistrate to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play further steps of the criminal justice system. Id. The magistrate's determination of probable cause to issue a search warrant is entitled to significant deference on review, and "marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate's judgment was reasonable." State v. Rodrigue, 437 So.2d 830, 833 (La. 1983).
The task for a reviewing court is simply to ensure that under the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. State v. Payne, 10-46 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/25/11), 59 So.3d 1287, 1296, writ denied, 11-387 (La. 9/16/11), 69 So.3d 1141. Further, if the magistrate finds the affidavit sufficiently detailed and reliable to show probable cause, the reviewing court should interpret the affidavit in a realistic and common sense fashion, being aware that it is normally prepared by non-lawyer police officers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Green, 831 So.2d at 969. Within these guidelines, courts should strive to uphold warrants in order to encourage their use by police officers. Id.; Every, 274 So.3d at 781.
Given the pervasiveness of cell phones, the Supreme Court also recognized that they "have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals." Riley, 573 U.S. at 401, 134 S.Ct. at 2493. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has held that evidence seized pursuant to a warrant based on less than probable cause need not be suppressed if the officers who executed the warrant believed it to be validly issued. State v. Davis, 17-642 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/11/17), 2017 WL 10118514, at *2 (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d. 677 (1984)). In formulating this judicially created good faith rule, the Court reasoned that the good faith of an officer in the execution of a warrant signed by a neutral magistrate should be enough for the evidence obtained as a result of the search to be admissible. Id. Thus, the Court expressed a strong preference for warrants over warrantless searches by allowing evidence seized in constitutionally questionable searches to be admissible into evidence if the officers were relying on a validly issued warrant. Id.
The Leon Court listed four scenarios where suppression is an appropriate remedy for a search conducted pursuant to a warrant: (1) the affiant misled the magistrate by including in the affidavit misleading statements which the affiant knew were false or would have known were false, except for reckless disregard for the truth; (2) the magistrate abandoned his neutral and detached role; (3) the affiant was so lacking of indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; and (4) the warrant was deficient and could not be presumed valid. Davis, supra (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 914-15, 104 S.Ct. at 3416).
Upon review of the application, we find none of the scenarios proposed in Leon are present in this case. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to suppress the search warrant for Defendant's cell phone. From the application, it appears that Detective Wischan was forthcoming, and based on the fact the phone was found on Defendant's person at the time of his arrest, the detective had reasonable grounds to suspect that Defendant may have had the phone in his possession on March 13, 2022 and that the phone may contain some evidence regarding the crimes committed on that date. We also find that the warrant was not so lacking of indicia of probable cause that the magistrate's belief in its existence was entirely unreasonable. Further, the warrant appeared to be without defect and valid. Last, it is clear from the application that the officers executing the warrant believed the warrant to be validly issued. See Davis, supra.
Based on the foregoing, the writ application is granted. Gretna, Louisiana, this 19th day of May, 2023.
MEJ
SMC
JJM