State Of La. v. Elliott
| Decision Date | 07 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009-KK-1727.,2009-KK-1727. |
| Citation | 35 So.3d 247 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisianav.Trey Daniel ELLIOTT. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, John Schuyler Marvin, Dist. Atty., Robert Randall Smith, Dist. Atty., Robert Randall Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Applicant.
Whitley R. Graves APLC, Whitley Robert Graves, for Respondent.
*
At issue in this prosecution for operating a vehicle while intoxicated is whether a 911 call placed by occupants of a vehicle following the defendant, and reporting traffic violations, can suffice to provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. Following a hearing, the district court granted the defendant's motion to suppress The State sought review in the court of appeal, which found no error in the district court's ruling. We granted certiorari in this matter to address the correctness of the district court ruling.
Upon review, we find the district court erred in granting the defense motion to suppress. The determination of whether probable cause exists for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is a purely objective inquiry that takes into account all of the information known collectively by the law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation even if some of the information is not communicated to the arresting officer. The information conveyed to the dispatcher from the citizen informants expressly described traffic violations as they occurred, providing the requisite indicia of reliability to justify a stop based on reasonable suspicion. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we reverse the district court's ruling granting the defendant's motion to suppress and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
At the suppression hearing, Daron Hartvigsen testified that on December 25, 2007, at approximately 6:30 p.m., he and his wife and child were in their vehicle turning from Greenacres Boulevard onto Airline Drive in Bossier Parish, when defendant's dark colored Ford Ranger ran a red light at the intersection and nearly collided with the passenger side of the Hartvigsen vehicle. He testified his wife screamed, and he slammed on his brakes to avoid an accident. Hartvigsen stated that he then started heading north, following the taillights of the truck that almost hit them. He observed the truck swerve left of the center line and stated it “was going all over the road.” Hartvigsen observed the vehicle hit the right curb and stated that as it approached Wemple Road and a red light, it almost crashed into a car. Near this time, Ms. Hartvigsen used her cellular telephone to call 911 and began relaying the events verbatim to the dispatcher as they continued their pursuit of the erratic driver. Eventually, local police from the Benton Police Department, acting on a dispatcher report from the Bossier Parish Sheriff's Office, stopped the defendant, Trey Daniel Elliott. The Hartvigsens pulled over behind the officer and remained on the scene. Mr. Hartvigsen identified the defendant in court as the person driving the Ford Ranger.
On cross examination, Mr. Hartvigsen stated that neither he nor his wife have ever been confidential informants for the police department or provided information to the sheriff's department which formed the basis for a search warrant or an arrest warrant.
The State and defense stipulated to the admission of the police reports. In the police report from the Bossier Parish Sheriff's Department, Deputy Mark Lyons stated that he was dispatched to investigate someone driving a dark colored Ford Ranger, traveling north on Airline Drive, that almost hit two vehicles while running red lights at two separate intersections. He became aware soon thereafter that a Benton Police Officer, Randall Matlock, was initiating a traffic stop on the suspect vehicle at Palmetto Road and Bellvue Road. Upon arriving at the scene, Deputy Lyons met with Mr. Hartvigsen who recited the events from his first contact with the defendant to that moment, adding that the vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed and had nearly collided with several other vehicles. The report further provided that Mr. Hartvigsen told Deputy Lyons that he stayed on the phone with the 911 dispatcher as he followed the suspect vehicle.1
The defendant was charged by bill of information with one count of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute “14:98-1,” 2 one count of careless operation of a motor vehicle in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 32:58, and two counts of failing to observe and stop for a traffic control signal in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 32:232. Following arraignment and assignment of the case, the defense filed a motion to suppress.
In the memorandum in support of the motion to suppress, the defense argued that at the time of the stop, the officer making the stop lacked reasonable suspicion or belief that the defendant had committed, was in the process of committing, or was about to commit a crime. The defense further argued that because the officer making the stop had not observed any type of violation of statute or traffic regulation, the only information he had was that a dark colored Ford Ranger was headed north down Palmetto Street and the Sheriff's Department was looking for it. He had no information concerning the credibility and reliability of the person claiming the defendant was driving erratically. Therefore, the defense argued that the stop was not made upon reasonable suspicion as required by Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 215.1. The defense contended that at the moment the officer initiated the stop by turning on the blue lights, he must have had independent knowledge of a crime having been committed unless he knows the source of the information and its established reliability. Defense counsel argued that anything which might have taken place after the stop with respect to any interaction between the arresting officers and the Hartvigsens had no relevance to the question of whether the police officer making the stop had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
The district court proceeded with the hearing on the motion to suppress. Mr. Hartvigsen testified, and the parties stipulated to the admission of the police reports. Following argument, the district court took the matter under advisement. Subsequently, the district court granted the motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the moment the officer first proceeded to stop the defendant. The court reasoned that after reviewing the jurisprudence relating to anonymous tips, the “anonymous call” alone was insufficient to justify the stop in this case where the officer making the stop had no knowledge of the credibility or reliability of the informant and had not observed any erratic driving or other traffic violations.
The State sought writs from the court of appeal contending the district court improperly determined that the patrol officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop of the defendant. The court of appeal denied the State's writ application. The court of appeal reasoned that, because the officer that stopped the defendant did not independently observe any criminal activity or driving violations, and had no information to assess reliability, there was no showing that the reporting witnesses were citizen informants, and there is no apparent public safety issue, the investigatory stop was not justified. State v. Elliott, unpub., 44,807 (La. App 2 Cir. 6/25/09).
This Court granted the State's application for certiorari to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...account all the information collectively known to the law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation. State v. Elliott , 09-1727 (La. 3/16/10), 35 So.3d 247, 251. Probable cause can rest upon the collective knowledge of the police, rather than solely on that of the arresting office......
-
State v. Allen
...stop. Corporal Hall was in the immediate vicinity and promptly spotted Defendant's vehicle and pulled him over. In State v. Elliott, 09–1727 (La.3/16/10), 35 So.3d 247, the supreme court discussed the legality of a traffic stop when the officer had not seen the traffic offenses but was told......
-
In re State
...under the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment, to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person.In State v. Elliott , 09-1727 (La. 3/16/10), 35 So.3d 247, cited by the State and the juvenile in their briefs, the supreme court found that information conveyed to a 9–1–1 dispatc......
-
State v. Gates
...described as “witnesses ... providing information about a crime as it was happening.” State v. Elliott, 2009–1727, p. 7 (La.3/16/10); 35 So.3d 247, 252.3 In Elliott, the occupants of a vehicle who were almost hit by a car running a red light placed a 911 call. The 911 callers stayed on the ......