The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2022-K-0542
VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
ORLANDO BROWN *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 552786, SECTION “C”
Honorable Benedict J. Willard, Judge
******
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase
******
(Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase)
LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS
Rachel Lindner
ORLEANS PUBLIC DEFENDERS’ OFFICE
2601 Tulane Avenue, Suite 700
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR
Jason Williams
District Attorney
Brad Scott
Chief of Appeals
ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
619 South White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED
SEPTEMBER 7, 2022
1
TG
C
Relator, Orlando Brown, seeks review of the district court’s May 31, 2022,
SCJ
ruling denying his motion to suppress. After consideration of the record before
this Court, and the applicable law, we grant the writ and reverse the ruling of the
district court denying Mr. Brown’s motion to suppress.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
On September 11, 2021, Relator was arrested pursuant to a warrant for
battery on a dating partner and second-degree rape. On the same date, Relator was
questioned at the police station regarding the incident for which he was arrested.
The arrest and questioning were recorded by the police officers’ body-worn
camera.
On November 9, 2021, Relator was charged with battery on a dating partner
by strangulation in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.9(L) and second-degree rape in
violation of La. R.S. 14.42.1.1 On December 7, 2021, Relator pled not guilty and
1 La. R.S. 14:34.9(A) defines battery on a dating partner as “the intentional use of force or
violence committed by one dating partner upon the person of another dating partner.”
1
filed various motions.2 On May 2, 2022, Relator filed a second motion to suppress
statements arguing that statements he gave after his arrest on September 11, 2021,
were given without the police officers first providing rights pursuant to Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); the statements were
secured in violation of his right to counsel; and his statements were involuntary.
On May 31, 2022, the district court heard Relator’s motion to suppress and
conducted a probable cause hearing. The police officer who investigated Relator’s
case was subpoenaed but failed to appear. The parties requested a continuance
which was denied by the district court. In lieu of police officer testimony, the State
submitted a copy of the arrest warrant, a copy of the police report, a copy of the
Miranda waiver form and a copy of the body-worn camera footage of the arrest
and questioning. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court found probable
cause for both charges and denied Relator’s motion to suppress. This application
for supervisory review followed.
Discussion
The sole issue before this Court is whether the district court erred in denying
Relator’s motion to suppress statements given on September 11, 2021.
La. R.S. 14:34.9(L) provides:
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, if the offense involves
strangulation, the offender, in addition to any other penalties imposed pursuant to
this Section, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than three years.
La. R.S. 14:42.1(A) defines second degree rape as “rape committed when the anal, oral, or
vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim because it is
committed under any one or more of the following circumstances [stated in the codal article].”
2 Relator filed motions to preserve evidence, suppress evidence, suppress statement and suppress
identification.
2
Appellate courts review a district court’s ruling under a deferential standard
with regard to factual determinations, while legal findings are subject to a de novo
standard of review. State v. Hunt, 2009-1589 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 746; State v.
Hampton, 1998-0331 (La. 4/23/99), 750 So.2d 867. Additionally, a district court’s
decision relative to the suppression of evidence is afforded great weight and will
not be set aside unless there is an abuse of discretion. State v. Wells, 2008-2262
(La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577.
Relator asserts that in denying his motion to suppress statements, the district
court erred in relying on a copy of the arrest warrant, a copy of the police report, a
copy of the Miranda rights form and the body-worn camera footage of Relator’s
arrest. He maintains that statements he gave after his arrest were given without
officers fully advising Relator of his Miranda rights; he did not knowingly and
freely waive his Miranda rights; and the evidence submitted by the State lacked
authentication. It is well-settled that the State has the burden of proving that a
Relator’s statements are admissible. La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). “Before what
[purports] to be a confession can be introduced in evidence, it must be
affirmatively shown that it was free and voluntary, and not made under the
influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises.”
State v. Barabin, 2013-0334, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/11/13), 124 So.3d 1121,
1124. Further, “[i]in order for a statement made by a suspect in custody to be
admissible at trial, police officers must advise the suspect of his Fifth Amendment
rights prior to interrogating him.” Id. (emphasis removed).
3
The State has failed to demonstrate that Relator was properly Mirandized
prior to questioning by the police officers. The Miranda form provides “[t]hese
[Miranda] rights should be recited to the person being advised as written.” The
investigating officer did not testify regarding the manner in which Relator was
given his Miranda rights thus, the State failed to prove that the proper procedure
was implemented. Further, the Miranda form submitted by the State does not
reflect that Relator signed the form without coercion and lacks any
acknowledgment by Relator that he understood his rights. Additionally, the record
reveals that during the hearing the State incorrectly advises the district court that
the body-worn camera footage depicts Relator being advised of his Miranda rights.
In denying the motion to suppress, the district court mistakenly relies on this
assertion. The body-worn camera footage reveals, and the State concedes, that the
police officers did not read Relator his Miranda rights prior to questioning.
Based on the record before this Court, the State has failed to demonstrate
that Relator received his rights in accordance with Miranda and the district court
erred in denying Relator’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we grant the writ and
reverse the district court’s ruling denying Relator’s motion to suppress.
WRIT GRANTED, JUDGMENT REVERSED
4