Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Jesse JONES
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1986-02-14
Citations: 483 So. 2d 1207
Docket Number: No. KA-4024
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Jesse JONES.
Judges: Before GARRISON, CIACCIO and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 483
Pages: 1207–1210

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Jesse JONES.
No. KA-4024.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Feb. 14, 1986.
Writ Denied May 12, 1986.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Michael E. McMahon, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Dwight Doskey, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before GARRISON, CIACCIO and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Opinion:
GARRISON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Criminal District Court in accordance with a 6 member jury verdict finding defendant Jesse Jones guilty of possession of pentazo-cine in violation of R.S. 40:967 after full trial on March 27, 1985.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress at the suppression hearing on January 11, 1985.
On September 4, 1984 undercover and plainclothes Officers Wallace Goodey and Pedro Moreno, both of Narcotics, were assigned to patrol the area of Orleans and Claiborne in a standard unmarked vehicle. They were assigned to this area because it is a well known high crime area, particularly noted for narcotics traffic. Although it was 6:00 p.m., it was daylight and the weather was fair.
While riding on Claiborne toward Orleans, both officers observed the defendant and another man exchange cash for an object. The two men appeared to be extremely nervous during the exchange. The officers stopped their car abreast of the two men and got out of the car. The two suspects immediately split up and headed in opposite directions. Officer Goodey followed the defendant into Duke's Liquor Store. Meanwhile Officer Moreno followed the suspect, who eventually began running and lost Officer Moreno.
Inside Duke's Liquor Store, Officer Goo-dey approached the checkout counter, identified himself as a police officer and conducted a "pat down" search. Upon patting defendant's left rear pocket he felt an object which felt like a pill formation. He then reached into the left rear pocket and retrieved a combination of Pentazocine and Talwin tablets marked T-52 and Pyroben-zime marked 543. He then placed the defendant under arrest and informed him of his rights.
Police may not approach an individual under circumstances which indicate that some form of detention is imminent unless they have either probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274 (La., 1984). To detain a person temporarily for purposes of investigation, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Sims, 426 So.2d 148 (La., 1983); See also C.Cr.P. art. 215.1 Reasonable cause for an investigatory detention is something less than probable cause and must be determined under the facts of each case by whether the officer had sufficient knowledge of facts and circumstances to justify an infringement on the individual's right to be free from governmental interference. State v. Square, 433 So.2d 104 (La., 1983); State v. Keller, 403 So.2d 693 (La., 1981). In this case, Officers Marino and Goodey saw two men exchange an object for money in an area they knew to be a frequent drug trafficking area. An officer's knowledge that a certain area is one of frequent criminal activity is a legitimate, recognized factor which may be used to judge the reasonableness of a detention. State v. Buckley and Robertson, 426 So.2d 103 (La., 1983). The officers testified that the defendant looked surprised at their approach, but surprise at being quickly confronted by two men who have just jumped from a curbside car does not alone seem so unusual as to indicate guilt or criminal proclivity. State v. Scott, 412 So.2d 988 (La., 1982).
In the instant case, the following factors are present:
1. It is a known high crime, high drug traffic area;
2. Cash was transferred;
3. An object was transferred;
4. The two men appeared extremely nervous prior to seeing the two plainclothes men;
5. Upon seeing the two plainclothesmen, their demeanor changed
6. The two suspects immediately began walking in opposite directions.
While any one of these factors, standing alone, might be insufficient, the number of factors present and the totality of the circumstances involved, provided the police officers with "reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop."
There are no errors patent on the face of the record and the evidence and testimony presented at trial is sufficient, to support the conviction. We find that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress and did not err in any other aspect of the proceedings below.
For the reasons discussed, the conviction and sentence of the Criminal District Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
CIACCIO, J., dissents.