State v. Hamilton

36 So. 3d 209 (La. 2010) · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 11, 2010 · No. 2009-KK-2205

Summary

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the defendant was not seized when officers instructed him to remove his hands from his pockets while he voluntarily approached them. The court concluded that the heroin discarded by the defendant was abandoned before any unlawful seizure and was therefore lawfully admissible. The court reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the Court
Philip C. Ciaccio, Justice ad hoc; Johnson, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana
Decision date
May 11, 2010
Docket number
2009-KK-2205
Procedural posture
The State sought supervisory review of the district court's order granting Hamilton's motion to suppress heroin and statements. After the Louisiana Fourth Circuit denied the State's writ application, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the suppression ruling.
Standard of review
The majority reviewed the constitutional seizure question on supervisory review. The dissent stated that a trial court's suppression ruling is entitled to great discretion and should not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.
Precedential value
Published Louisiana Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
State of Louisiana v. Richard Hamilton
Disposition
reversed

Topics

suppression of evidencefourth amendmentsearch and seizurecriminal procedureprobable cause

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Hamilton was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when an officer instructed him to remove his hands from his pockets while he voluntarily approached the officers.
  2. Whether the heroin packet abandoned during the encounter was the product of an unconstitutional seizure and therefore subject to suppression.
  3. Whether the district court erred in suppressing the heroin and statements made after the arrest.

Holdings

  1. The instruction did not constitute an actual stop or seizure because Hamilton was voluntarily approaching the officers, and the instruction was a reasonable officer-safety precaution that did not communicate an intent to detain, search, or seize him.
  2. The heroin packet was lawfully seized because Hamilton abandoned it before any unlawful police intrusion or seizure.
  3. The district court erred in granting Hamilton's motion to suppress the heroin and the statements made after the arrest.

Key quotations

We conclude that the officers' encounter with the defendant was voluntary, and Officer Brady's instruction for the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets did not give rise to a seizure of the defendant. (211)
Prior to his abandoning the foil, the defendant was neither seized nor stopped, a fact that made the package legally recoverable by the officers. (215)

Factual background

Officers monitoring an area of New Orleans because of a recent increase in batteries and robberies observed Richard Hamilton walking near a convenience store. The officers called to him, but he initially continued walking away; he then voluntarily stopped, turned around, and approached the officers with his hands in his pockets. An officer instructed him to remove his hands for officer-safety reasons, and Hamilton dropped a foil packet that was later determined to contain heroin before the officers showed an intent to detain him. The officers then handcuffed and arrested him, and a search incident to arrest recovered $1,600 in cash.

Procedural history

Hamilton was charged by bill of information with possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The district court granted his motion to suppress the heroin and statements, finding no probable cause. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit denied the State's writ application. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the district court, and held that the evidence was lawfully seized.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…