Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. Paul KEY, Relator
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1979-10-08
Citations: 375 So. 2d 1354
Docket Number: No. 63717
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. Paul KEY, Relator.
Judges: SUMMERS, C. J., dissents and files reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 375
Pages: 1354–1360

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. Paul KEY, Relator.
No. 63717.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 8, 1979.
Giles J. Duplechin, Gretna, for relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Harry Hardin, Asst. Dist. Attys., for respondent.

Opinion:
TATE, Justice.
The defendant is charged with possession of cocaine. La.R.S. 40:967. The cocaine was found in the rolled-up sleeve of the defendant's shirt, as the result of a war-rantless airport search.
We granted certiorari, 366 So.2d 914, to review the trial court's denial of the accused's motion to suppress this evidence as unlawfully seized. We reverse, finding that the cocaine was seized as the result of an illegal arrest and search of the defendant's person by narcotics agents. La.Const. of 1974, Art. 1, Section 5.
The state contends that the airport stop was justified by particularized information and observation of the defendant sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that the relator was carrying illegal narcotics. The state argues that, consequently, the narcotics agents were justified in stopping the accused to question him as to his name, address, and explanation of his actions (La. C.Cr.P. art. 215.1; State v. Brown, 370 So.2d 547 (La.1979), and that his actions thereafter constituted probable cause for the arrest.
We do not find merit in the state's contentions.
The narcotics officers stopped the defendant at the New Orleans airport. They did so essentially on the basis that he was nervous and evasive in his movements around the airport after he had arrived on a flight from Los Angeles, that an airlines employee had noticed that he appeared at the Los Angeles ticket counter in a hurry and nervously paid his fare in small bills, and that in 1977 he had been arrested at the Atlanta Airport for possession of heroin.
The officers detained the accused in the airport restroom after he had jogged to it to use the urinal. The testifying agent admitted that this conduct was consistent with the actions of a man in a hurry to use the bathroom; however, he felt it to be consistent with an intent to dispose of illegal narcotics by flushing them down the drain.
The officers had no information upon which to base a reasonable belief that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity at the time they stopped him. A mere suspicion arising from his prior arrest did not entitle the officers to believe that the accused was presently engaged in any illegal activity. The remaining conduct of the defendant was just as consistent with innocent as with illicit behavior. It did not provide the specific and articulable facts indicating criminal conduct sufficient to justify the instant investigatory stop. State v. Matthews, 366 So.2d 1348 (La.1978); State v. Washington, 364 So.2d 958 (La.1978).
For this reason alone— let alone because of the illegal arrest, the coerced consent to an initial unsuccessful) search, and the in voluntariness of the subsequent search of the defendant's shirtsleeve — , the evidence seized as a result of the illegal stop should have been suppressed.
Decree
Accordingly, we reverse the action of the trial court in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence illegally seized, and we enter judgment sustaining this motion. We remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with law.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SUMMERS, C. J., dissents and files reasons.
MARCUS, J., dissents.
BLANCHE, J., dissents for reasons assigned by SUMMERS, C. J.