ยง 4-19.2 Memorandum in support of defendant's motion to quash search warrant and prohibit the use of all fruits arising therefrom (controlled delivery of postal package)
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. DEFENDANT
FILED: _______________ _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT AND SUPPRESS ALL FRUITS ARISING THEREFROM I. INTRODUCTION Defendant contends that the evidence obtained from the search conducted pursuant to the search warrant obtained on ________ , 20__ , and all evidence derived therefrom, is required to be suppressed. The grounds mandating this suppression arise from the fact that the affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked the indicia of probable cause necessary to support the issuance of a search warrant. II. THE LOUISIANA LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCEOF A SEARCH WARRANT Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the affiant's knowledge, and those of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to support a reasonable belief that evidence or contraband may be found at the place to be searched. State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105, 1108 (La. 1982). In addition, the facts which form the basis for probable cause to issue a search warrant must be contained "within the four corners" of the affidavit. Duncan, at 1108. A magistrate must be given enough information to make an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant. State v. Manso, 449 So.2d 480, 482 (La. 1984), cert. denied, Manso v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 835, 105 S.Ct. 129, 83 L.Ed.2d 70 (1984). The reviewing Court must determine whether the "totality of the circumstances" set forth in the affidavit is sufficient to allow the magistrate to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him that there is a reasonable probability that contraband will be found. The duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Manso, at 482. In State v. Daughterty, 743 So.2d 270, 1999-0257 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/99), a police officer in Texas assigned to an air cargo terminal noticed a package addressed to a New Orleans
location that was similar to other packages found to contain drugs. The police report indicates that a narcotics detection dog "alerted" on the package. Daughterty, at 272. The officer gave the package to a U.P.S. employee who then opened the package and found nine bundles containing various amounts of valium, xanax, and steroids inside. The officer then resealed the package and sent it to the Louisiana State Police. The Louisiana police opened the package to verify its contents, resealed the package, and obtained an anticipatory warrant to search the address located on the package once the police made a delivery of the package to the addressee. A police officer disguised as a U.P.S. delivery man delivered the package to the address on the package. The police then executed the warrant for the address and seized illegal drugs that were located on the premises. The probable cause for the search warrant in this case was created when the narcotics dog "alerted" on the package in the Texas airport. Once this alert occurred, there was probable cause to believe that the package contained illegal substances. The evidence of the dog's detection of the contraband, however, was not placed in the affidavit. Mover adopts as part of this memorandum the case of State of Louisiana v. Snee and Daughterty, 743 So.2d 270, 1999-09257 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/1991), in toto; the complete text of which is attached hereto for the court's convenience. III. CONCLUSION The Search Warrant issued herein should and ought to be quashed and all things derived therefrom should be suppressed and the State be prohibited from using such fruits as evidence in any trial of this matter.
_______________ [Name of attorney for defendant] (Certificate of Service) Compliments of Attorney Samuel S. Dalton