State ex rel. K.B.J.

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF K.B.J.

No. 2023 KJ 0734

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

January 19, 2024

Appealed from The Juvenile Court Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. 117856 The Honorable Curtis A Calloway, Judge Ad Hoc Presiding ^[1]

Hillar C. Moore, III, District Attorney, Prisca Zeigler, Assistant District Attorney, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for the State of Louisiana.

Lakita Leonard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorney for Appellant K.B.J.

BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, ^[2] AND WOLFE, JJ.

WOLFE J.

The juvenile, K.B.J.,^[3] was alleged delinquent by petition in juvenile court based on one count of illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities (count one), a violation of La. R.S. 14:94, and one count of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile (count two), a violation of La. R.S. 14:95.8. K.B.J. was fifteen years old at the time of the alleged offenses. He filed a motion to suppress physical evidence, which was denied. Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated K.B.J. not delinquent on count one and delinquent on count two. The juvenile court imposed a disposition of commitment to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Juvenile Justice, for six months, suspended, and twelve months supervised probation. K.B.J. now appeals, assigning error to the juvenile court's denial of his motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we affirm the juvenile's adjudication and disposition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 25, 2023, at 3:53 p.m., an anonymous caller reported to the Baker Police Department that they heard gunshots fired near an apartment complex on Jefferson Street in Baker, Louisiana. The caller stated that two black male juveniles wearing backpacks, one of whom was wearing camouflage, were seen leaving the area. Minutes later, Lieutenant Bryan Holiday, an undercover officer in the area, observed two black juvenile males wearing backpacks walking down Jefferson Street. Using the dispatch radio, Lieutenant Holiday informed other officers that one juvenile, K.B.J., was wearing a white hoodie, and the other juvenile was wearing a black hoodie. Suspecting that they were the juveniles described in the call, Lieutenant Holiday advised Officer Brian Thomas, a uniformed patrol officer, of their location.

Upon arriving on Jefferson Street, Officer Thomas observed the two juveniles described by Lieutenant Holiday and conducted an investigatory stop. Officer Thomas then patted down K.B.J., whereupon he located a firearm concealed inside of K.B.J.'s pants. The juveniles were advised of their Miranda^[4] rights and transported to the police station.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

In his sole assignment of error, K.B.J. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, K.B.J. contends that the juvenile court erroneously allocated the burden of proof in contravention of La. Code Crim. P. art. 703(D), and that the firearm warranted suppression because it was illegally seized.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5, of the Louisiana Constitution protect people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Subject only to a few well-established exceptions, a search or seizure conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is constitutionally prohibited. State v Baker, 2020-1253 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/1/21), 332 So.3d 692, 695. A juvenile may move to suppress any evidence on the ground that it was unconstitutionally obtained. See La. Ch. Code art. 872; La. Code Crim. P. art. 703(A). Once the juvenile makes an initial showing that a warrantless search or seizure occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the State to affirmatively show it was justified under one of the narrow exceptions to the rule requiring a search warrant. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 703(D); State v. Cyprian, 2021-0287 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/22/21), 340 So.3d 271, 281.

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is entitled to great weight because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony. A trial court's legal findings, however, are subject to a de novo standard of review. State v. Landor, 2020-0336 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/19/21), 318 So.3d 225, 228. In determining whether the ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress was correct, we are not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion and may consider all pertinent evidence given at the trial of the case. Id. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that the trial court erroneously allocated the burden of proof to K.B.J., this error was immaterial where thorough appellate review of the record clearly establishes the reasonableness and thus the constitutionality of Officer Thomas's initial stop and subsequent search of K.B.J.

The right of law enforcement officers to stop and interrogate one reasonably suspected of criminal conduct is recognized by La. Code Crim. P. art. 215.1, as well as both federal and state jurisprudence. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884-85,20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968);^[5] Cyprian, 340 So.3d at 281-82. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions. La. Code Crim. P. art. 215.1(A); State v. Hicks, 2022-0085 (La.App. 1st Cir. 9/16/22), 2022 WL 4286557, *3 (unpublished). Reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is something less than probable cause^[6] and must be determined under the specific facts of each case by whether the officer had sufficient knowledge of particular facts and circumstances to justify the infringement on the individual's right to be free from governmental interference. State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La. 4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330, 335; Hicks, 2022 WL 4286557 at *3.

Further, if the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects the person possesses a dangerous weapon, he may search the person. La. Code Crim. P. art. 215.1(B). It is not necessary for an investigating officer to establish that a detained individual was more probably than not armed and dangerous in order to justify a patdown for weapons. Rather, it is sufficient if the officer establishes a substantial possibility of danger by pointing to particular facts that support such a reasonable inference. State v. Young, 2020-0412 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/18/21), 322 So.3d 830, 834, writ denied, 2021-00524 (La. 10/1/21), 324 So.3d 1055. The reasonableness of an officer's suspicion must be measured by what the officer knew before conducting the search. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 1379, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000); State v. McDonald, 2008-0821 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/14/08), 2008 WL 4908655, *5 (unpublished), writ denied, 2008-2905 (La. 9/18/09), 17 So.3d 386.

In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to temporarily detain a person, the totality of the circumstances, "the whole picture," must be considered. The detaining officer must have knowledge of specific, articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the stop. Hicks, 2022 WL 4286557 at *3. The officer must therefore articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch. Young, 322 So.3d at 834.

In the instant case, the anonymous caller provided a general description of two black male juveniles wearing backpacks, with one wearing camouflage, near an apartment complex on Jefferson Street. After Lieutenant Holiday advised dispatch that he located two juveniles matching the caller's description, Officer Thomas traveled to Jefferson Street, where he immediately observed the two juveniles walking away from the apartment complex. These two juveniles, including K.B.J., were the only people in the area at that time.

Citing Florida v. J.L., K.B.J. contends that Officer Thomas lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigatory stop. In J.L., an anonymous caller reported that a young black male standing at a bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Acting solely on the anonymous tip, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom was wearing a plaid shirt. Officers approached J.L., frisked him, and seized a gun from his pocket. J.L., 529 U.S. at 268, 120 S.Ct. at 1377. The United States Supreme Court held that the anonymous tip in J.L. lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to establish reasonable suspicion for a Terry investigatory stop. J.L., 529 U.S. at 270,120 S.Ct. at 1378; see also State v. Lewis, 2018-0924 (La. 10/29/18), 256 So.3d 978, 979 (per curiam).

Whether an anonymous tip establishes reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop is considered under the totality of the circumstances. The sufficiency of an anonymous tip under Terry is determined by the reliability of its assertion of illegality and not just its tendency to identify a determinate person. Cyprian, 340 So.3d at 284. The anonymous caller's ability to predict the suspect's future behavior goes toward reliability, as it demonstrates inside information and a special familiarity with the suspect's affairs. However, predictive ability is not always necessary; a non-predictive tip coupled with police corroboration or independent observation of suspicious activity can provide the police with the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect. Id.

In the instant matter, we find no error in the trial court's finding that Officer Thomas had the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of K.B.J. and his associate based upon the...