{"id":11483,"date":"2014-05-09T08:02:15","date_gmt":"2014-05-09T13:02:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=11483"},"modified":"2014-05-09T08:02:15","modified_gmt":"2014-05-09T13:02:15","slug":"la-arrest-and-search-and-seizure-outside-of-an-officers-territorial-jurisdiction-does-not-warrant-exclusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=11483","title":{"rendered":"LA: Arrest and search and seizure outside of an officer\u2019s territorial jurisdiction does not warrant exclusion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>An arrest and search and seizure outside of an officer\u2019s territorial jurisdiction does not warrant exclusion.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lasc.org\/opinions\/2014\/13KK1422.opn.pdf\">State v. Gates<\/a>,  2014 La. LEXIS 1139 (May 7, 2014):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Even if we assume Officer Bell acted outside of his territorial jurisdiction in the detention of the defendant, suppression of the evidence obtained after Mr. Gates&#8217; detention would not be warranted. The statutory rules which delineate the territorial zones of responsibility of various law enforcement agencies are not designed to prevent unreasonable invasions of privacy. There are no constitutional grounds present here to justify the suppression of evidence. &#8220;Exclusion of reliable evidence obtained in an otherwise legal and good faith seizure would not serve the administration of justice or the purpose of the legislative directive of territorial responsibility.&#8221; Bickham, 404 So.2d at 933. The exclusionary rule does not extend to &#8220;non-constitutional violations of statutes which are not designed to protect the privacy interests of citizens.&#8221; Durke, 2003-3174, p. 1; 885 So.2d at 514.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An arrest and search and seizure outside of an officer\u2019s territorial jurisdiction does not warrant exclusion. State v. Gates, 2014 La. LEXIS 1139 (May 7, 2014): Even if we assume Officer Bell acted outside of his territorial jurisdiction in the &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=11483\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exclusionary-rule"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11483"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11484,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11483\/revisions\/11484"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}