Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Oliver BRANNON
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1982-05-17
Citations: 414 So. 2d 335
Docket Number: No. 66718
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Oliver BRANNON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 414
Pages: 335–340

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Oliver BRANNON.
No. 66718.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 17, 1982.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Joe Lotwick, Kay Kirkpatrick, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
Joseph P. Brantley, IV, Baton Rouge, Richard V. Burnes of Gravel, Burnes & Robertson, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
WATSON, Justice.
Defendant, Oliver Brannon, pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:967. He was sentenced to five years with the Department of Corrections and a fine of $15,000 and costs, or one year in parish prison. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in not granting defend ant's motion to suppress the marijuana. State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La., 1976).
It was stipulated that approximately seventy pounds of marijuana were seized from a pickup truck parked in the yard of a residence at 2424 Pliney Street in Baton Rouge. The home and pickup truck are owned by Lenora R. Brannon, defendant's mother. A warrant was secured to search the Brannon residence and pickup on the basis of the following affidavit:
"Dets. Greg Phares and Barry Bannister affiant(s) now appear(s) before the undersigned Judge authorized to issue warrants in criminal cases, and makes this affidavit under oath, in su-port (sic) of the issuance of a search warrant, to search the following described place: A residence, together with a garage apartment and all vehicles, located at 2424 Pliny Street, Baton Rouge, La. and to seize, secure, tabulate and make return thereof according to law the following property or things which have been used in the commission of, or which constitute evidence of, criminal conduct, to-wit: Controlled dangerous substances, to wit, marijuana, cocaine, and paraphenalia associated with said drugs.
"Affiant(s) say that he had probable cause to believe that the above-listed things to be seized are now concealed and located upon the above described premises based upon the following facts: On 12-4-78 at 9:30 A.M. a cooperating individual placed a telephone call to Casey Brannon at 387-1852. In the conversation, the cooperating individual (C.I.) spoke with Brannon about obtaining sixty (60) pounds of marijuana. Brannon told C.I. that he had sixty (60) pounds left and told C.I. to come look at the marijuana. "The call was placed from a police phone, taped, and witnessed by affiants. The tape was placed in evidence.
"Phone number 387-1852 was confirmed as that of Oliver P. (Casey) Brannon, 3434 Pliny Street, Baton Rouge.
"Affiants further state that they have had reliable information on and have been conducting narcotics investigation on Oliver P. (Casey) Brannon for a period of approximately two years.
"The C.I. is identified as David G. Brous-sard."
sjc # j}c sf: ¡fc
The affidavit was executed on December 4, 1978. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Police Officer Greg Phares testified that he had arrested David G. Brous-sard the previous night with twenty-five to thirty pounds of marijuana. Broussard said the contraband had been obtained from one Casey Brannon residing at 2424 Pliney Street, Baton Rouge. Broussard had been "busted" before. The officers promised Broussard that if his cooperation "got more than we got off him," he would "walk". Broussard then placed a telephone call to a number which he identified as being that of Casey Brannon. The conversation between the two was recorded. Officer Phares listened to both sides of the conversation.
The transcript of the taped conversation is attached as an appendix to this opinion. The phone was answered by someone Broussard addressed as Daniel. Broussard advised Daniel that he wanted a "sack" for some boys in Lake Charles, would pay cash and would be over in a little bit to consummate the transaction. The transcript does not identify the person to whom Broussard talked as Casey Brannon. It does not mention sixty pounds of marijuana or any quantity of marijuana. The parties refer only to a sack. According to Officer Phares' testimony, a sack signifies approximately sixty pounds of marijuana in a garbage bag. However, this explanation is not contained in the affidavit. The affidavit states that the phone number was confirmed as being that of Oliver P. (Casey) Brannon, but it developed at the hearing that the number is listed in the name of Mrs. Lenora Brannon.
It is significant that Officer Phares listened to both sides of the conversation. Thus, his representation in the affidavit of the substance of that conversation was his own and not that of informant Broussard. The statement that Broussard "spoke with Brannon about obtaining sixty pounds (60) of marijuana. Brannon told C.I. that he had sixty pounds (60) left and told C.I. to come look at the marijuana." is false. That information is not contained in the. conversation between Brannon and Broussard, even granting that Brannon is in fact the Daniel with whom Broussard spoke on the telephone.
If the affiants had correctly stated that the parties discussed purchase of a sack and that the term sack is street parlance for sixty pounds or more of marijuana, there would have been no misrepresentation to the magistrate. These affiants synthesized their information and presented the magistrate a conclusion rather than the supporting facts. An affidavit must recite facts rather than conclusions. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 162. The magistrate's function was usurped; it is his job to weigh the facts and judge independently whether probable cause exists. State v. Morstein, 404 So.2d 916 (La., 1981).
An affidavit supporting a search warrant is presumed to be valid. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Defendant at the hearing had the burden of proving that the representations in the affidavit by the affi-ants were false. State v. Wollfarth, 376 So.2d 107 (La., 1979). When a defendant proves that an affidavit contains false statements, it should be determined whether the misrepresentations are intentional or unintentional. State v. Paster, 373 So.2d 170 (La., 1979). Here, however, the result is the same in either instance. Even granting that the distorted report of the telephone conversation was inadvertent and represented Officer Phares' impression of its substance, the inaccuracies must be deleted. State v. Rey, 351 So.2d 489 (La., 1977); State v. Lamartiniere, 362 So.2d 526 (La., 1978). Leaving aside the false material in this affidavit, the remainder does not furnish probable cause for issuance of a warrant.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to suppress is granted; defendant's conviction and sentence are vacated; and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LEMMON, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
H. CHARLES GAUDIN, J. ad hoc, dissents and assigns reasons.
PHILIP C. CIACCIO, J. ad hoc, I dissent.
APPENDIX
TAPED INTERVIEW WITH DAVID G. BROUSSARD AND CASEY BRANNON.
DATE: 12/4/78
OFFICERS: GREG PHARES AND BARRY BANNISTER
DIAL TONE
DIALING
PHONE RINGING
Broussard: That number is on Perkins Road? Did ya'll get an address on it? Ain't nobody answering.
PHONE SOUNDS
Broussard: This is Casey's number. PHONE SOUNDS
Daniel: Hello.
Broussard: Daniel, what you doing?
Daniel: Not answering the fucking phone.
Broussard: You sleeping?
Daniel: Yea.
Broussard: Kind of early isn't it?
Daniel: Yea.
Broussard: Hey.
Daniel: Did you just call and let it ring fifty times?
Broussard: Yes. Hey, uh, them boys from Lake Charles?
Daniel: Yep.
Broussard: They want a sack.
Daniel: I only got one. I went out there last night and just got what was left and that's it too. So, you know, uh, if you want to come look at what I got, that's cool.
Broussard: They want one and they will pay for it you know, the whole thing. I still owe you for the other one I got.
Daniel: Yea.
Broussard: I got part of it out and still got part of it. But these boys from Lake Charles want a whole thing you know. Cash on the barrel head.
Daniel: When do you want to look at it?
Broussard: Well, I can come over there and look at it anytime you want. You got it.
Daniel: Yea, it's all ready, man. I just got it all put together about 1:00 last night. Your timing was perfect.
Broussard: You don't want these guys to come over to your house?
Daniel: Un-uh.
Broussard: Do you want me to come over there and get it and bring it to them and bring your mon.
Daniel: Yea, that will be cool.
Broussard: I'll come over in just a little bit then.
Daniel: Why don't you wait about 30 or 45 minutes.
Broussard: Okay.
Daniel: Bye.
Broussard: Bye.
Officer: The preceeding (sic) conversation took place Monday, December 4, 1978, approximately 9:45 A.M. The location was the Baton Rouge City Police Detective Office, Chief John Landry's office. The conversation initiate (sic) from 389-4868 to 387-1832. The number of a Casey Bran-non. The call was initiated by a cooperating individual, a David C. Broussard. Persons present in the room at the time of the conversation, Det. Greg Phares and Barry Bannister, Baton Rouge City Police Detective Office, Det. Greg Phares, Baton Rouge City Police Narcotics.
Judges Israel M. Augustine, Jr., and Philip C. Ciaccio of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, and H. Charles Gaudin of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, participated in this decision as Associate Justices Ad Hoc joined by Justices Calogero, Dennis, Watson and Lemmon.
. Marijuana is presently a Schedule I drug; its possession is a violation of LSA-R.S. 40:966.
. Broussard was subsequently released.