Opinion ID: 1789614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion in Granting Defendants' Motion?

Text: The United States Supreme Court has held that evidence seized pursuant to a warrant for which there was no probable cause need not be suppressed if the officers who executed the warrant believed it was validly issued. See generally United States v. Leon, supra . The Leon Court, however, listed four situations where suppression is the appropriate remedy for a search pursuant to an invalid warrant: (1) the affiant misled the magistrate by including in the affidavit misleading statements which the affiant knew were false or would have known were false, except for reckless disregard for the truth; [1] (2) the magistrate abandoned his neutral and detached role; [2] (3) the affiant was so lacking of indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; [3] and (4) the warrant was deficient and could not be presumed valid. See id. at 914-15, 104 S.Ct. 3405. In the case sub judice, the district court's judgment matches the first and third criterion. The affidavit indicated the confidential informant purchased cocaine from Eli within 48-hours of the time Detective Noel applied for the warrant. See Application for Search Warrant. However, testimony during the motion hearing shows the informant had not seen Eli in the two weeks prior to Eli's arrest. During cross-examination, Detective Noel made statements that were contradictory to those he made to the magistrate when applying for the warrant. Q: What did you get from the CI that made you apply for a search warrant? A: I was told that Junius Eli resides at 8915 Pritchard Place and also that he deals narcotics. But he stores the bulk of his narcotics at 3926 General Ogden Street. CI stated that Mr. Eli does not live there[,] that a female lives there but the female allows him to store the narcotics there. THE COURT: (to the witness) Did he at any time indicate that he saw any drugs in either one of those places at that particular time? WITNESS: He had indicated that he purchased from Mr. Eli in the past. THE COURT: (to the witness) No, not in the past. I'm talking about surrounding this. Let's say, let's go back[,] this is 10/24, let's go back to 10/10. Anytime between the tenth of October of 2000 and the 24th of October of 2000 that he had been in either of those residents [sic] and he had seen or made any purchases from any of those places? WITNESS: No, he did not. Transcript at 40-41 (emphasis added). Furthermore, none of the extensive surveillance indicated drug trafficking activity and a police search of one of the individuals who participated in an exchange the detectives witnessed only revealed ribbon. During a Motion to Suppress hearing, the State has the burden of proving the admissibility of contraband articles seized without a warrant. See LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 703(D) (West 2002). In the instant case, it cannot be said the warrant was obtained in good faith since the affiant knowingly made several misrepresentations to the issuing magistrate. Cf. United States v. Leon, supra . Therefore, contingent on the district court's findings, suppression of seized contraband is the appropriate remedy. See id. at 914, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Even with support for a warrant application, a reviewing court may properly conclude that, notwithstanding the deference that magistrates deserve, the warrant was invalid because the magistrate's probable cause determination reflected an improper analysis of the totality of the circumstances, or because the form of the warrant was improper in some respect. Id. at 915, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (citations omitted). Furthermore, in reviewing the magistrate judge, the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress ... is entitled to great weight, because the district court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony. State v. Mims, 98-2572 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/99), 752 So.2d 192, 193-94 (citations omitted). In the case sub judice, the district court's ruling is well-supported by the record. In granting defendants' motion to suppress, the court stated: I'm impressed with the fact that no activity that even remotely suggestedI would be afraid if someone got a search warrant for my house and came in and found anything based upon what this was all about. They don't see any activity at any of these addresses that even remotely suggest[s]they don't see any dope. There is no controlled buy. There is nobody even suggesting that there is dope in any of these places and Mr. Council went a little furtherI'm glad he did present the ribbon thing ... with those particular stops and what have you. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing that suggest[s] that there was dope in either of these places.... And I find no probable cause for their arrest. Transcript at 53 (emphasis added). Furthermore, in keeping with the U.S. Supreme Court's standard in Gates, supra, the district court evaluated the totality-of-the-circumstances, as it had the benefit of more information than did the magistrate judge. In reviewing the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant, the district court objectively found the police officers lacked probable cause. We, therefore, conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to suppress and that the court of appeal did not err in denying the State's writ application.