Opinion
2022-C-0548
08-12-2022
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.
Jason Rogers Williams District Attorney Brad Scott Tenee Felix COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/RELATOR Bethany Samhan Louisiana Center for Children's Rights COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2022-108-01-DQ-A, SECTION "A" Honorable Clinton Smith
Jason Rogers Williams District Attorney Brad Scott Tenee Felix COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/RELATOR
Bethany Samhan Louisiana Center for Children's Rights COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase)
PAULA A. BROWN JUDGE
In this juvenile delinquency writ application, Relator, the State of Louisiana (the "State"), seeks supervisory review of the juvenile court's June 30, 2022 judgment, which granted Respondent's, B.J., motion to suppress evidence seized following a pursuit ("motion to suppress"). For the reasons that follow, we grant the State's writ application, reverse the juvenile court's judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this writ opinion.
In accordance with Rules 5-1 and 5-2, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, initials are used throughout this opinion to protect the juvenile's identity. State in Int. of J.K., 22-0308, p. 1, n. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/13/22), ___So.3d ___, ___, 2022 WL 2712521 at *1.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 18, 2022, the State filed a delinquency petition in the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans, charging B.J. with one count of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile pursuant to La. R.S. 14:95.8. On April 20, 2022, B.J. entered a denial to the charge. On June 27, 2022, B.J. filed a motion to suppress alleging that the arresting officer initiated an unconstitutional pursuit and search against him without reasonable articulable suspicion that he had committed a crime. On June 30, 2022, the juvenile court summarily granted the motion to suppress. Before the commencement of the adjudication hearing, on July 13, 2022, the State objected to the juvenile court's decision to grant the motion to suppress without holding an evidentiary hearing. The juvenile court, conceding that the State's argument had merit, granted a stay of the proceedings to allow the State to seek supervisory review. This timely writ application followed.
La. R.S. 14:95.8 states in pertinent part:
A. It is unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of eighteen years knowingly to possess any handgun on his person. Any person possessing any handgun in violation of this Section commits the offense of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile.
DISCUSSION
The State argues that the juvenile court erred in granting B.J.'s motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, the State contends that the juvenile court may not grant, without holding a contradictory hearing, a defendant's motion to suppress evidence based solely upon the defendant's allegations. We agree.
La. Ch.C. art. 872 provides that a "child may move to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Louisiana." "A motion may be granted without a contradictory hearing when mover is clearly entitled thereto without supporting proof." La. Ch.C. art. 865 (C). "A motion shall not be denied without a contradictory hearing unless, assuming the facts alleged to be true, mover is not entitled to relief." Id. "Louisiana jurisprudence has held that a hearing is not required when a motion to suppress fails to allege any constitutional issues." State in Int. of W.B., 16-0642, p. 16 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/7/16), 206 So.3d 974, 984 (citing State v. Tapp, 08-1262, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 8 So.3d 804, 806-07). Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(E)(1):
An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress shall be held only when the defendant alleges facts that would require the granting of relief. The state may file an answer to the motion. The defendant may testify in support of a motion to suppress without being subject to examination on other matters. The defendant's testimony cannot be used by the state except for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the defendant's testimony at the trial on the merits.
In the case sub judice, we find that on its face, B.J.'s motion to suppress clearly raised factual allegations that needed supporting evidence or testimony for the juvenile court to consider. B.J. not only raised the constitutional issue of a warrantless search and seizure, he also called into question the arresting officer's reasonable suspicion to conduct the initial stop. Accordingly, we conclude that under the facts presented in this case, a contradictory hearing on a motion to suppress was warranted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the State's writ application, reverse the juvenile court's judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this writ opinion.
PAB
TFL
TGC