Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

684 So. 2d 540

Docket No. 96-K-1659.

State v. Davis

STATE of Louisiana v. Edward DAVIS.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided November 27, 1996.

Writ Denied February 7, 1997.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1996-11-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““... the Louisiana Constitution only protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy. The basic test for determining whether a person’s constitutional right to privacy has been violated is 1) whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and 2) whether society |24⅛ ready to accept that expectation of privacy as reasonable.” (citation omitted). In State v. Hussey, 469 So.2d 346 (La. App. 2d Cir.1985), two passengers were placed in the backseat of a police car to be driven to the police station because they and the driver were too intoxicated to move their vehicle off of the highway. A hidden tape recorder recorded their conversation during which they discussed stolen items that were in the vehicle they were driving. Based on the tape recording, the passengers were arrested and charged. The appellate court upheld denying the defendants’ motion to suppress the tape recording because the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the rear seat of the police car. Davis had less of an expectation of privacy. He was not just a passenger in a police care, but had been placed under arrest and given his Miranda rights. Once arrested, the police car became Davis’s temporary jail in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 62 So. 3d 229 - State v. Green

Relies on 637 So. 2d 1120 - State v. McKinney · State v. Hussey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-11-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2014

4 state decisions

20199620002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Harry F. Connick, District Attorney, Parish of Orleans, Allison Monahan, Assistant District Attorney, Parish of Orleans, Seth Rutman, Law Clerk, New Orleans, for Relator.

¶2Before CIACCIO, ARMSTRONG and LANDRIEU, JJ.

¶3LANDRIEU, Judge.

¶4The trial court granted Edward Davis's motion to suppress a tape recording of a conversation that he had with another defendant while they were seated in the back of a police car after having been placed in custody and Mirandized. We reverse the trial court's ruling and hold that the tape is admissible.

¶5Davis argues that the taping, which was done without his knowledge, was a violation of his right to privacy as embodied in Article I, Section V of the Louisiana Constitution. We agree with Davis that the Louisiana Constitution affords greater protection for freedom from invasion than the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution does and that we, therefore, are not bound by federal jurisprudence.

¶6However, the Louisiana Constitution only protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy. The basic test for determining whether a person's constitutional right to privacy has been violated is 1) whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and 2) whether society is ready to accept that expectation of privacy as reasonable. State v. McKinney, 93-1425 (La.App. 4th Cir. 5/17/94), 637 So.2d 1120, 1125-26.

¶7In State v. Hussey,469 So.2d 346 (La.App. 2d Cir.1985), two passengers were placed in the backseat of a police car to be driven to the police station because they and the driver were too intoxicated to move their vehicle off of the highway. A hidden tape recorder recorded their conversation during which they discussed stolen items that were in the vehicle they were driving. Based on the tape recording, the passengers were arrested and charged. The appellate court upheld denying the defendants' motion to suppress the tape recording because the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the rear seat of the police car.

¶8Davis had less of an expectation of privacy. He was not just a passenger in a police car, but had been placed under arrest and given his Miranda rights. Once arrested, the police car became Davis's temporary jail in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

¶9*541 Accordingly, the trial court is reversed and the defendants' motion to suppress the tape recording is denied.

¶10WRIT APPLICATION GRANTED.

/684/so2d/540 · .json · Public domain