From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Davis

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit
Nov 27, 1996
684 So. 2d 540 (La. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 96-K-1659.

November 27, 1996.

APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH, NOS. 379-877, 379-878, SECTION "D," STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE FRANK A. MARULLO, J.

Harry F. Connick, District Attorney, Parish of Orleans, Allison Monahan, Assistant District Attorney, Parish of Orleans, Seth Rutman, Law Clerk, New Orleans, for Relator.

Before CIACCIO, ARMSTRONG and LANDRIEU, JJ.


The trial court granted Edward Davis's motion to suppress a tape recording of a conversation that he had with another defendant while they were seated in the back of a police car after having been placed in custody and Mirandized. We reverse the trial court's ruling and hold that the tape is admissible.

Davis argues that the taping, which was done without his knowledge, was a violation of his right to privacy as embodied in Article I, Section V of the Louisiana Constitution. We agree with Davis that the Louisiana Constitution affords greater protection for freedom from invasion than the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution does and that we, therefore, are not bound by federal jurisprudence.

However, the Louisiana Constitution only protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy. The basic test for determining whether a person's constitutional right to privacy has been violated is 1) whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and 2) whether society is ready to accept that expectation of privacy as reasonable. State v. McKinney, 93-1425 (La.App. 4th Cir. 5/17/94), 637 So.2d 1120, 1125-26.

In State v. Hussey, 469 So.2d 346 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1985), two passengers were placed in the backseat of a police car to be driven to the police station because they and the driver were too intoxicated to move their vehicle off of the highway. A hidden tape recorder recorded their conversation during which they discussed stolen items that were in the vehicle they were driving. Based on the tape recording, the passengers were arrested and charged. The appellate court upheld denying the defendants' motion to suppress the tape recording because the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the rear seat of the police car.

Davis had less of an expectation of privacy. He was not just a passenger in a police car, but had been placed under arrest and given his Miranda rights. Once arrested, the police car became Davis's temporary jail in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Accordingly, the trial court is reversed and the defendants' motion to suppress the tape recording is denied.

WRIT APPLICATION GRANTED.


Summaries of

State v. Davis

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit
Nov 27, 1996
684 So. 2d 540 (La. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

State v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA v. EDWARD DAVIS

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Nov 27, 1996

Citations

684 So. 2d 540 (La. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

State v. Green

Accordingly, the admission of Defendant's recorded conversation with his mother cannot reasonably be said to…

State v. Durham

In State v. Hussey, 469 So.2d 346 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1985), this court upheld the trial court's denial of a…