Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. William August MORA, Jr.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-03-29
Citations: 330 So. 2d 900
Docket Number: No. 54884
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. William August MORA, Jr.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J,., dissents with written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 330
Pages: 900–905

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. William August MORA, Jr.
No. 54884.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
March 29, 1976.
Rehearing Denied May 14, 1976.
Guy J. D’Antonio, Reed, Reed & D’Antonio, New Orleans, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Knowles M. Tucker, Dist. Atty., Bernard E. Boud-reaux, Jr., Walter J. Senette, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
DENNIS, Justice.
William August Mora, Jr. was charged by bill of information with possession of marijuana in violation of La.R.S. 40:-966(C). He was found guilty as charged and subsequently sentenced to six months' imprisonment. We granted defendant's application for certiorari, 295 So.2d 808 (La. 1974), and reversed the conviction and sentence, finding merit in defendant's contention that the trial judge committed error in denying his motion to suppress the marijuana. 307 So.2d 317 (La.1975). The Supreme Court of the United States grant- ed the petition of the state for certiorari : and thereupon vacated our judgment and • remanded the case to this Court, issuing the following mandate:
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it was ordered and adjudged on October 6, 1975, by this Court that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in this cause be vacated, and that this cause be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana to consider whether its judgment is based upon federal or state constitutional grounds, or both. See California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 [93 S.Ct. 32, 34 L.Ed.2d 45] (1972).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CAUSE IS REMANDED to you in order that such proceedings may be had in the said cause, in conformity with the judgment of this Court above stated, as accord with right and justice, and the Constitution and laws of the United States, the said writ notwithstanding.
Pursuant to the mandate set forth above, we have considered whether our opinion in this cause was based on federal or state constitutional grounds, or both, and certify as follows:
Our opinion reflects that we fol-. lowed three steps in concluding that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the marijuana seized from the defendant. First, we determined that the instructor and the school principal who effected the search and seizure were functioning as governmental agents. This decision was reached solely by an analysis of Louisiana law. La.R.S. 17:416. Next we decided that the warrantless search of defendant's duffel bag was unreasonable and in violation of both federal and state constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article I, § 7 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921. Consequently, we concluded that suppression of the seized marijuana was mandated under the exclusionary rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961).
Thus, we acted on both federal and state constitutional grounds, as well as state statutory law, in reaching our decision in this case.