Case Title: State v. Loehr

Citation: 355 So. 2d 925

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
355 So. 2d 925 (1978) STATE of Louisiana v. Jerome D. LOEHR. STATE of Louisiana v. Linda M. LOEHR. Nos. 60737, 60738. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 6, 1978. Allen A. McElroy, Jr., McElroy & Ramsey, Ltd., Berwick, for defendants-relators. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Knowles M. Tucker, Dist. Atty., Bernard E. Boudreaux, Jr., Edward M. Leonard, Jr., Walter J. Senette, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-respondent. DIXON, Justice. Defendants Jerome D. Loehr and Linda M. Loehr were charged with the possession of marijuana. A motion to suppress evidence seized in a search of the defendants' trailer was denied by the trial court on August 17, 1977. We granted defendants' application for certiorari in order to review that ruling. 351 So. 2d 1213 (La.1977); 351 So. 2d 1214 (La.1977). The sole issue presented is whether the affidavit upon which the warrant for the search of defendants' residence was issued adequately supports a finding of probable cause to search. The affidavit reads as follows: It is fundamental that an affidavit upon which a search warrant is based must inform the issuing magistrate of underlying facts sufficient to support a determination that evidence of a crime is presently on the premises to be searched. State v. Porter, 344 So. 2d 1031 (La.1977); State v. Paciera, 290 So. 2d 681 (La.1974). The affidavit in the present case fails to meet this requirement. First, there is nothing in the affidavit that suggests that whatever contraband that may have been in Jerome Loehr's possession could be found in his residence. While in some cases this fact may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances (see, e. g. United States v. Burgard, 551 F.2d 190 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. den. 417 U.S. 930, 94 S. Ct. 2640, 41 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1974); United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1970)), such an inference is not justified where the only information supplied by the affiant is that the defendant had a small amount of heroin in his possession and that he had bought it in New Orleans. See United States v. Flanagan, 423 F.2d 745 (5th Cir. 1970); United States v. Whitlow, 339 F.2d 975 (7th Cir. 1964). A second fatal defect in the affidavit is its failure to inform the issuing judge of the time when the events described actually happened. In dealing with this issue, this court has stated: See also State v. Segers, 355 So. 2d 238 (La.1978); State v. Turner, 337 So. 2d 1090 (La.1976). In State v. Thompson, 354 So. 2d 513 (La.1978), we held that an affidavit which fails to make any reference to the time when the events took place, and which is phrased in the past tense does not provide the magistrate with sufficient facts to determine that probable cause to search exists at that time. In the present cases there is no reference to the time when the informant obtained his information, nor is there any indication of the time when the affiant was contacted by the informant. The affidavit is written in the past tense, so it is not possible to infer that the facts demonstrate a continuing course of conduct. Accordingly, the search warrant must fall. State v. Thompson, supra. Since the affidavit in the present cases is fatally defective, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The motion to suppress is sustained, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling herein.