{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"search-and-seizure","label":"Search and Seizure","description":null,"totalCases":103,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":14},{"year":2019,"count":9},{"year":2020,"count":13},{"year":2021,"count":9},{"year":2022,"count":9},{"year":2023,"count":11},{"year":2024,"count":16},{"year":2025,"count":17},{"year":2026,"count":5}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed112976:2026-02-17","opinionId":"4a907936-c5a1-5441-8ec9-edce2518f829","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-d-walton-appellant-112976","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112976","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to police. Walton contended his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to police deception about the true nature of the investigation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Walton's waiver was voluntary because he was informed of his rights, understood them, and continued speaking with detectives, consistent with prior case law.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-d-walton-appellant-112976","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101172:2026-02-03","opinionId":"cfcbbb06-e60d-5ad6-8dc4-b10b4720bcd1","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-appellant-101172","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Amanda Joy Rogers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101172","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Amanda Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court held that the state presented sufficient evidence of Rogers' knowing possession of the firearm, rejecting the requirement for 'additional incriminating evidence' in joint possession cases. It also found that law enforcement had probable cause for the vehicle search based on an informant's tip and other circumstances.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-appellant-101172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101178:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d3a2f1f8-f64a-5f69-8e10-c93e36771de2","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Israel Barrera, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101178","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Israel Barrera moved to suppress urine test results obtained via two warrants in a sexual molestation case. The circuit court sustained the motion, finding a lack of probable cause for Warrant 1 and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the affidavit for Warrant 1 provided a substantial basis for probable cause, particularly due to corroborative details of the victim's medical examination. The Court affirmed that Warrant 1 authorized both seizure and search, rendering Warrant 2 unnecessary, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87238:2025-11-12","opinionId":"22b45ab0-334e-527f-b0ac-1c651aed4fe5","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nPatrick Logan Pulse","caseNumber":"WD87238","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Patrick Logan Pulse appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, stemming from shooting a Lyft driver, arguing self-defense at trial. On appeal, Pulse challenged the admission of three pieces of evidence: a video of his arrest, a video of him in a police car post-arrest, and his hospital records showing controlled substances. He also claimed instructional error for the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the defense of others. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, finding no merit to Pulse's claims of error regarding evidence admission or instructional error.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87377:2025-11-12","opinionId":"5a507ea8-23e6-57a7-abb8-fc794484cd3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJonathan Edward Rainey","caseNumber":"WD87377","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jonathan Rainey appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the protective search of Rainey's person and vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search was supported by probable cause, thus the evidence was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38593:2025-09-22","opinionId":"a59aeaf0-b1cf-568f-b51b-9355cab2447a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38593","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Sales, Jr., a prior and persistent felony drug offender, appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, possession, tampering with evidence, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, following a jury trial where he represented himself. Sales challenged the probable cause for a search warrant, the sufficiency of the evidence regarding chain of custody and drug paraphernalia, and claimed he was denied his right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in any of his claims, including that his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, and that the evidence was sufficient.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38642:2025-09-09","opinionId":"dc3f27e3-2c48-57b8-8c1a-83bb079ca368","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMICHAEL SCOTT MOUNT, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38642","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael Scott Mount was found guilty of multiple charges, including identity theft, after a bench trial. On appeal, Mount challenged his identity theft conviction, arguing insufficient evidence, and sought to exclude evidence as fruit of an unlawful search. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Mount lacked standing to challenge the hotel room search and that sufficient evidence supported his identity theft conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112885:2025-06-17","opinionId":"75063de3-e165-5e72-96d6-ff8d613d62f2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-branden-g-collins-appellant-112885","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Branden G. Collins, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112885","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Branden Collins appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine residue and drug paraphernalia, arguing the circuit court plainly erred by not sua sponte excluding his statements made during an alleged custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. It held that Collins failed to meet his burden to show he was not Mirandized, and without evidence in the record, there was no evident, obvious, and clear error to warrant plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221419","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-branden-g-collins-appellant-112885","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38750:2025-05-29","opinionId":"d4de29ed-fa65-5af9-afd2-5a57f281c2e6","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-denise-margaret-lafferty-respondent-d38750","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant\nvs.\nDENISE MARGARET LAFFERTY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38750","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Denise Margaret Lafferty moved to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop, arguing that a warrantless \"Terry search\" of her pockets was unconstitutional. The circuit court sustained her motion, leading to an interlocutory appeal by the State. The State contended the search was valid or, alternatively, that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that the officer's command to empty pockets exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry search and that the State failed to prove inevitable discovery.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-denise-margaret-lafferty-respondent-d38750","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112934:2025-04-01","opinionId":"735c5292-5c7c-5f85-a20a-9341096df1c8","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiffappellant-v-jesse-m-bromwell-defendantresponde-112934","caseName":"State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Jesse M. Bromwell, Defendant/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112934","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jesse M. Bromwell was charged with burglary and stealing, and the trial court granted his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of a back bedroom in his father's home. The State appealed, arguing the search was lawful based on the father's consent and that the officer's testimony about the consent was not hearsay. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the officers reasonably believed the homeowner father had authority to consent to the search. Additionally, the testimony regarding consent was admissible as it explained subsequent police conduct without implicating the defendant in the charged offenses.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218998","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiffappellant-v-jesse-m-bromwell-defendantresponde-112934","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112071:2025-03-04","opinionId":"10e82390-31ac-56c7-8661-1c3869df4e86","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-douglas-beeson-appellant-112071","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Douglas Beeson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112071","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Douglas Beeson was convicted of multiple offenses, including possession of a controlled substance, after contraband was found in his vehicle. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress this evidence, arguing the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because his vehicle was immobile. The Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the automobile exception applies when there is probable cause to search, even if the vehicle is not readily mobile, due to the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-douglas-beeson-appellant-112071","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100558:2025-02-11","opinionId":"f176bef5-6db5-53a9-abd9-65c3bde103e0","slug":"fs-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-division-of-probation-a-100558","caseName":"F.S., Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100558","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"F.S., a convicted sex offender, appealed a circuit court judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of section 217.735, which mandates lifetime electronic monitoring. She argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied to her under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming she posed no risk of reoffending. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that F.S. failed to present particularized evidence to support her as-applied challenge and did not dispute the circuit court's factual findings.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/fs-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-division-of-probation-a-100558","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38445:2025-01-13","opinionId":"e3f115e8-e5d1-5a49-b115-78fcc6c506df","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-defendant-responden-d38445","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nAMANDA M. MIRE, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38445","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"Amanda M. Mire was charged with driving while intoxicated, and the trial court granted her motions to suppress statements and physical evidence, specifically blood draw results. The trial court found that Mire was involuntarily administered Versed, which prevented her from knowingly and voluntarily consenting to a blood draw or waiving her Miranda rights. The State appealed, and the appellate court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the trial court clearly erred by inferring the cognitive effects of Versed without expert testimony. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-defendant-responden-d38445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111800:2024-12-17","opinionId":"cf590521-a42f-5030-a43f-14ff23bec2de","slug":"william-schierbaum-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111800","caseName":"William Schierbaum, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111800","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"William Schierbaum appealed the denial of his two Rule 29.15 post-conviction motions, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to evidence from allegedly illegal searches and for failing to investigate false information in search warrant affidavits. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The court found that Movant's brief violated Rule 84.04 because his points relied on were multifarious, omitted required language, and his argument sections lacked preservation statements, record citations, and proper development of the claims.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-schierbaum-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111800","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112266:2024-11-19","opinionId":"cb5e33ee-4289-5b78-9e7f-f3483702034c","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiffrespondent-v-isaiah-m-lane-defendantappellant-112266","caseName":"State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Isaiah M. Lane, Defendant/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112266","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Isaiah M. Lane appealed his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, arguing the trial court erred by not sua sponte excluding evidence from an allegedly unlawful stop and search of his vehicle. The appellate court found the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Lane's vehicle to investigate a reported shooting and that the subsequent protective search of the vehicle was proper, leading to the discovery of methamphetamine. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, declining to find plain error for the unpreserved claim.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214640","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiffrespondent-v-isaiah-m-lane-defendantappellant-112266","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100469:2024-11-05","opinionId":"dd963f2b-53bc-5bf4-b896-e6d8fb23e136","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-chad-thomas-appellant-100469","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Chad Thomas, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100469","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Chad Thomas appealed his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He contended the evidence was discovered during an unlawful search because the officer extended a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the totality of the circumstances surrounding Thomas's behavior and responses during the stop provided the officer with reasonable suspicion to continue the detention and conduct a canine sniff.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-chad-thomas-appellant-100469","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37844:2024-10-01","opinionId":"24a8bafd-ae42-58f6-990a-2e56e2b4fe45","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-walls-appellant-d37844","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nDEANDRE WALLS, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37844","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Deandre Walls appealed his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon and other charges, arguing the trial court erred in sentencing him under a specific subsection of the unlawful use of a weapon statute without a jury finding that he shot from a motor vehicle. He also contended the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle, asserting a lack of probable cause for its warrantless seizure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Walls' points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-walls-appellant-d37844","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111423:2024-10-01","opinionId":"d5702a50-63f7-57b2-b262-100ad2e1944d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-prinshun-mcclain-appellant-111423","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Prinshun McClain, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111423","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Prinshun McClain appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence. He argued that a bag containing the murder weapon was seized from his grandmother's home without a warrant and that his location was obtained via warrantless cell phone data. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the bag was abandoned property and the cell phone data was obtained under exigent circumstances, thus both searches were lawful.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-prinshun-mcclain-appellant-111423","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38313:2024-08-28","opinionId":"a83c2edf-cb39-5ad3-9920-4b013b919f8f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-louis-smith-appellant-d38313","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nTIMOTHY LOUIS SMITH, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38313","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Timothy Louis Smith called 911 for a medical emergency, and after EMS cleared him, he asked a law enforcement officer for a ride. The officer agreed on the condition of a consent search, which revealed methamphetamine residue and a syringe cap. Smith was convicted of drug offenses, but argued on appeal that he was immune under Missouri's Good Samaritan Law, section 195.205, because the evidence was found \"as a result of\" his call for medical assistance. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute requires a stronger causal connection than \"but for\" causation, and the evidence was found due to his consent to search, not directly from seeking medical assistance.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-louis-smith-appellant-d38313","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111500:2024-03-12","opinionId":"70294203-0c21-5c78-8ad0-5205d9e4cce1","slug":"in-the-interest-of-mas-111500","caseName":"In the Interest of M.A.S.","caseNumber":"ED111500","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellant M.A.S. appealed a juvenile court judgment finding he committed acts constituting first-degree tampering, specifically driving a stolen vehicle. He challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the victim's testimony about reporting her vehicle stolen provided the necessary reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop. The court also found no reversible error as M.A.S. failed to demonstrate prejudice from the denial of his motion to suppress.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206341","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-mas-111500","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86061:2024-03-12","opinionId":"ea40b81e-2f24-5dce-b8b1-fc589eaa832c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-craig-neil-salcedo-d86061","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nCraig Neil Salcedo","caseNumber":"WD86061","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Craig Salcedo appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss based on statutory immunity and his motion to suppress evidence. Salcedo argued he was immune from prosecution because the methamphetamine was found during a good-faith request for medical assistance related to a mental health emergency. He also contended the warrantless search that discovered the drugs violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the immunity statute did not apply to non-drug related mental health commitments and that a search incident to civil detention for mental health transport is reasonable.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","governmental-immunity","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-craig-neil-salcedo-d86061","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85840:2024-03-05","opinionId":"63d39198-a0d9-5ed8-adcd-d047091c8f0e","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-brayon-j-williams-d85840","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nBrayon J. Williams","caseNumber":"WD85840","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Brayon J. Williams appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance following a bench trial. He argued that he was immune from prosecution under section 195.205 because he was the subject of a good faith request for medical assistance for an overdose, and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence seized during an unlawful inventory search. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Williams waived the immunity defense by not raising it at trial. It further found no error in the admission of the evidence, concluding the inventory search was proper incident to protective custody.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-brayon-j-williams-d85840","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111130:2024-02-13","opinionId":"2925d3ce-f721-5753-9672-2e09ba9ce93c","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-gates-appellant-111130","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Christopher L. Gates, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111130","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher L. Gates appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and resisting arrest, following a bench trial. He challenged the trial court's admission of his custodial interrogation recording, arguing his Miranda waiver was unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent, and also contested the admission of an audio recording from the victim's phone due to an alleged lack of foundation. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment, concluding that Gates knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and that the State established a proper foundation for the audio recording.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-gates-appellant-111130","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37599:2023-11-30","opinionId":"1f0daef6-21fe-54aa-819f-b99da44560f8","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-kristina-proctor-defendant-respon-d37599","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nKRISTINA PROCTOR, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37599","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kristina Proctor was charged with driving while intoxicated, and the trial court suppressed her breath test result because law enforcement read her Missouri's Implied Consent Statements before her Miranda rights. The State of Missouri filed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court reversed the suppression order, holding that Miranda warnings are not required before reading implied consent statements and requesting a breath test, as this process does not constitute a guilt-seeking interrogation. Consequently, the breath test result is admissible evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-kristina-proctor-defendant-respon-d37599","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85247:2023-10-24","opinionId":"9cc57586-cb82-5e5b-ab31-8472b6798a82","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-marqus-andrew-wilson-d85247","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nMarqus Andrew Wilson","caseNumber":"WD85247","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"Marqus Andrew Wilson appealed his conviction for first-degree robbery, raising two points. First, he argued the trial court erred by not suppressing evidence and statements obtained from his arrest, claiming a lack of probable cause. Second, he contended the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, alleging a Brady violation due to the State's suppression of a co-defendant's video-recorded interview. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding Wilson waived review of the suppression issue and failed to prove a Brady violation.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202237","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-marqus-andrew-wilson-d85247","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37664:2023-09-06","opinionId":"5e4a33a9-2cb2-5f95-93cd-1213ede9c68f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-willis-hough-appellant-d37664","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nJOHN WILLIS HOUGH, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37664","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"John Hough was convicted of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy. On appeal, he requested plain error review of a prosecutor's closing argument comment regarding his post-arrest silence, arguing it violated his constitutional rights. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review because Hough failed to establish substantial grounds for believing a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice occurred due to the isolated nature of the comment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200774","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-willis-hough-appellant-d37664","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110766:2023-08-08","opinionId":"cccf9bb6-7fe9-5a65-ba49-b9416b31535d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-paul-w-bodenhamer-appellant-110766","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Paul W. Bodenhamer, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110766","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-08","year":2023,"display_summary":"Paul W. Bodenhamer appealed his convictions for possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, driving while intoxicated, and failure to signal following a bench trial. The State moved to dismiss the entire appeal, arguing the suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on the DWI count rendered the judgment non-final. The appellate court affirmed the convictions with imposed sentences (Counts I, II, and IV) and dismissed the appeal for the SIS count (Count III). The court also affirmed the denial of Bodenhamer's motion to suppress, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and conduct field sobriety tests.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-paul-w-bodenhamer-appellant-110766","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99886:2023-06-27","opinionId":"56b69830-9d1c-5631-bdb6-c856cb6447e3","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-nicholas-a-barton-respondent-c99886","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Nicholas A. Barton, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99886","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Nicholas A. Barton was arrested by Poplar Bluff police officers in Campbell, outside their territorial jurisdiction, for felony robberies not committed in their presence. The circuit court sustained Barton's motions to suppress evidence, finding a Fourth Amendment violation. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's decision, holding that a warrantless felony arrest is constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if supported by probable cause, even if the crime was not committed in the arresting officer's presence or within their jurisdiction. The Court also found that Barton's motion did not adequately raise a claim of lack of probable cause.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-nicholas-a-barton-respondent-c99886","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85067:2023-04-04","opinionId":"b88544cb-01c3-5d58-af48-0cce71ac870f","slug":"joanthony-d-johnson-v-state-of-missouri-d85067","caseName":"Joanthony D. Johnson \nvs. \nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85067","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-04","year":2023,"display_summary":"Joanthony Johnson appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging five claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Johnson argued his counsel erred regarding a cell phone extraction agreement, the observation of his phone's passcode, the scope of a suppression motion, and a motion for improper joinder and severance. The Western District affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no error in its denial of Johnson's claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joanthony-d-johnson-v-state-of-missouri-d85067","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85748:2023-03-28","opinionId":"5038c9bd-4dea-54ae-a87e-235d88404c17","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-kimberly-e-vandervort-d85748","caseName":"State of Missouri \nvs. \nKimberly E. Vandervort","caseNumber":"WD85748","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-03-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kimberly Vandervort was charged with driving while intoxicated after a single-vehicle collision. The circuit court partially granted her motion to suppress custodial statements made before Miranda warnings. On interlocutory appeal, the State challenged the suppression of Vandervort's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test and her statements about vomiting in the patrol car. The appellate court reversed the suppression of the blood-alcohol test refusal, finding it was not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination, but affirmed the suppression of the vomiting statements, concluding they resulted from a custodial interrogation.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193600","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-kimberly-e-vandervort-d85748","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110207:2023-03-14","opinionId":"c40d7b39-60f3-56fe-886e-f5a5b07d5ec8","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-stephen-craig-ingram-appellant-110207","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Stephen Craig Ingram, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110207","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"Stephen Craig Ingram appealed his conviction for possession of more than twenty still images of child pornography following a bench trial. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the date of possession was an element and that cache files should not count towards the image total. He also contended that evidence was unlawfully obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment by Yahoo and NCMEC. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the date is not an element, cache files can be considered with corroborating evidence, and neither Yahoo nor NCMEC violated the Fourth Amendment as private parties or by acting within the scope of a private search or geolocating an IP address.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-stephen-craig-ingram-appellant-110207","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84964:2023-03-07","opinionId":"e31f3f72-4fd3-59dd-91f9-44385a23e1d7","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-lee-allen-haneline-d84964","caseName":"State of Missouri \nvs. \nLee Allen Haneline","caseNumber":"WD84964","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-03-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Lee Allen Haneline appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. He argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence from a warrantless search of his lunchbox and that there was insufficient evidence to prove possession. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the search of the lunchbox violated Haneline's Fourth Amendment rights and that its admission was not harmless error. However, the court found there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, considering both admissible and inadmissible evidence.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193107","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-lee-allen-haneline-d84964","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110252:2023-03-07","opinionId":"2202c4fd-87ff-5943-8d8f-1eec8459f217","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eugene-p-hampton-appellant-110252","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene P. Hampton, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110252","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Eugene Hampton was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. On appeal, Hampton challenged the trial court's denial of his request to represent himself at trial and its denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hampton's request for self-representation was equivocal and that he failed to demonstrate prejudice from the admission of the challenged evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193097","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eugene-p-hampton-appellant-110252","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37492:2023-01-24","opinionId":"d38ac556-a897-554b-8daf-315d5777efc9","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-c-copley-defendant-appella-d37492","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDAVID C. COPLEY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37492","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-01-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"David C. Copley appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography and failure to register as a sex offender, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from his cellphone. Copley claimed the search of his phone was illegal. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that Copley lacked standing to challenge the search because he repeatedly disclaimed ownership of the phone at the time it was discovered.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-c-copley-defendant-appella-d37492","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37383:2022-12-21","opinionId":"f4cab29a-d95c-5118-b43c-0ae01fc1cf55","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-william-bryce-creutz-jr-defendan-d37383","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nWILLIAM BRYCE CREUTZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37383","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-12-21","year":2022,"display_summary":"William Bryce Creutz, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing the trial court erred by not suppressing evidence found during a vehicle inventory search. Creutz contended the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and Section 304.155 because he was not given an opportunity to arrange for the vehicle's removal. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the State proved Creutz was unable to arrange for the vehicle's timely removal, thus satisfying Section 304.155.1(5), and that the inventory search was reasonable and lawful despite any potential investigatory motive.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-william-bryce-creutz-jr-defendan-d37383","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84601:2022-12-06","opinionId":"747731f6-e256-5cc8-98b0-8589cffa5ef4","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jose-f-hernandez-d84601","caseName":"State of Missouri \nvs. \nJose F. Hernandez","caseNumber":"WD84601","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jose Hernandez appealed his convictions for domestic assault, armed criminal action, and felonious restraint, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Hernandez contended that police conducted an unlawful warrantless search of his home and that information from this search tainted a subsequent warrant. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry and search of Hernandez's home, and thus the motion to suppress was properly denied.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jose-f-hernandez-d84601","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99522:2022-11-22","opinionId":"70f25667-ffd2-5ed5-bc5b-7e47f6ba5111","slug":"kyle-g-petersen-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-c99522","caseName":"Kyle G. Petersen, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99522","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kyle G. Petersen was found guilty of driving while intoxicated as a persistent offender following a bench trial. He appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by not suppressing breath test results and observations of impairment, claiming Fourth Amendment violations. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Petersen failed to preserve his objections for appellate review by not renewing them specifically at trial. The Court declined to conduct plain error review as it was not requested or argued.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190675","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kyle-g-petersen-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-c99522","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84329:2022-09-27","opinionId":"9b0844af-b91c-5718-9347-11c0bc980a3d","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-terry-joe-berwaldt-d84329","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nTerry Joe Berwaldt","caseNumber":"WD84329","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Terry Berwaldt appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he possessed the items. Berwaldt contended the evidence failed to establish ownership of the items found in his bedroom or his recent presence in the home relative to other occupants. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Berwaldt had constructive, sole possession of the controlled substance and paraphernalia.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-terry-joe-berwaldt-d84329","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37178:2022-05-31","opinionId":"53a50f22-5573-5a32-a35f-4ff28f5036bb","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-brandon-patrick-teel-defendant-a-d37178","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nBRANDON PATRICK TEEL, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37178","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-31","year":2022,"display_summary":"Brandon Patrick Teel appealed his conviction for possessing a controlled substance, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his backpack during an inventory search. He contended the search violated police procedures and the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered during a subsequent, procedurally-mandated custody search. The court also remanded the case for the circuit court to correct a clerical error in the judgment.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187144","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-brandon-patrick-teel-defendant-a-d37178","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84161:2022-05-03","opinionId":"1a314257-dc94-5081-9ca0-37e5a8904247","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-thomas-steve-higgs-d84161","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nThomas Steve Higgs","caseNumber":"WD84161","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-03","year":2022,"display_summary":"Thomas Steve Higgs appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Higgs contended that the arresting officer engaged in racial profiling, lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, conducted a non-consensual seizure from the outset, and failed to provide Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-thomas-steve-higgs-d84161","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36859:2022-03-30","opinionId":"6c33cb5e-9b9d-551a-aae8-ce80db09383e","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-nikia-barnum-defendant-appellant-d36859","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nNIKIA BARNUM, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36859","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-30","year":2022,"display_summary":"Nikia Barnum appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, resisting arrest, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia following a bench trial. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for felony resisting arrest and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a ruse drug checkpoint. The appellate court affirmed, finding the ruse checkpoint and Barnum's conduct established individualized suspicion, and alternatively, the initial encounter was consensual, leading to probable cause for arrest. The court also found sufficient evidence that Barnum was being arrested for a felony when he resisted.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-nikia-barnum-defendant-appellant-d36859","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84272:2022-01-18","opinionId":"221aaaf8-3211-5dfd-a039-ac43daf03b96","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-kenneth-l-wykert-d84272","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nKenneth L. Wykert","caseNumber":"WD84272","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-01-18","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kenneth Wykert was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance and misdemeanor unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Wykert challenged the admission of evidence obtained from a pat-down, arguing lack of consent or reasonable suspicion, and statements made during a patrol car interview, claiming custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Wykert consented to the pat-down and was not in custody during the patrol car interview.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-kenneth-l-wykert-d84272","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37081:2022-01-18","opinionId":"aa66be89-f5bb-5168-bc73-5d2e26e690a2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-thomas-elvin-branson-defendant-re-d37081","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nTHOMAS ELVIN BRANSON, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37081","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-01-18","year":2022,"display_summary":"Thomas Elvin Branson was charged with delivering a controlled substance, and the trial court granted his motion to suppress drugs found in his backpack and statements he made. The State appealed the suppression of the drugs, arguing the search was lawful incident to arrest or that the drugs would have been inevitably discovered. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the trial court was entitled to disbelieve the State's testimonial evidence regarding both the search incident to arrest and the inevitable discovery doctrines.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-thomas-elvin-branson-defendant-re-d37081","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36867:2021-12-14","opinionId":"63b2954f-a75a-53e4-b4fd-868c52af59c7","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-romel-taylor-appellant-d36867","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nRICHARD ROMEL TAYLOR, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36867","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-14","year":2021,"display_summary":"Richard Romel Taylor appealed his convictions for two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and four counts of armed criminal action following a bench trial. Taylor argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from an unlawful GPS search and a passenger's statement, and in denying his motion to suppress an eyewitness identification. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the convictions, finding Taylor waived his claims regarding the passenger's statement and the GPS data was not admitted as trial evidence. The court also found Taylor failed to preserve his arguments regarding the eyewitness identification for appellate review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-romel-taylor-appellant-d36867","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109736:2021-11-23","opinionId":"8961fd2f-38fc-5d6f-aa62-2f75db46718b","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-caden-n-ybarra-respondent-109736","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Caden N. Ybarra, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109736","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the partial grant of Caden N. Ybarra's motion to suppress statements and physical evidence. The trial court had suppressed statements made during a traffic stop, cocaine evidence, and statements made at a hotel. The appellate court reversed the suppression of statements and cocaine from the traffic stop, finding Ybarra was not in custody for Miranda purposes and his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. However, the court affirmed the suppression of statements made at the hotel, concluding Ybarra was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings at that point.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182218","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-caden-n-ybarra-respondent-109736","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98376:2021-08-31","opinionId":"6a3b40c4-1af4-5220-98cd-fc1cfc82f5a5","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-james-christopher-bales-respondent-c98376","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. James Christopher Bales, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98376","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-08-31","year":2021,"display_summary":"The State appealed the circuit court's order suppressing a cell phone and its electronic data seized from James Bales. The circuit court found the search warrant lacked particularity and was facially deficient, and that the good faith exception did not apply. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, holding that the seizure of the cell phone at the sheriff's office was outside the scope of the warrant, which specified a search at a particular address. The Court further held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because it was not objectively reasonable for the officer to execute the warrant outside its authorized scope.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-james-christopher-bales-respondent-c98376","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108596:2021-05-25","opinionId":"62ccc54f-5f72-5779-8b42-413b860092f2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-viron-ganaway-appellant-108596","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Viron Ganaway, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108596","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-25","year":2021,"display_summary":"Viron Ganaway appealed his convictions for first-degree robbery, resisting a lawful stop, and two counts of armed criminal action. He argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, contending the traffic stop was unlawful, and by entering a conviction for resisting a lawful stop due to a fatal variance between the charge and jury instructions. The Eastern District affirmed the judgment, holding that officers had probable cause for the stop based on observed traffic violations, and that the variance in the resisting charge was not prejudicial because Ganaway's defense applied to both variations of the offense.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177588","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-viron-ganaway-appellant-108596","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83887:2021-03-30","opinionId":"3571afb9-4ab6-5bf5-b137-a9cfac798d48","slug":"antonio-m-morrison-v-state-of-missouri-d83887","caseName":"Antonio M. Morrison\nvs.\nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD83887","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-30","year":2021,"display_summary":"Antonio M. Morrison appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Morrison contended his counsel failed to argue insufficient evidence for his resisting arrest conviction, specifically that the officer lacked grounds for a lawful stop. The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the resisting arrest statute does not require a stop for a crime or infraction, and the officer had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, making the proposed argument futile.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175869","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/antonio-m-morrison-v-state-of-missouri-d83887","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83657:2021-03-30","opinionId":"fa6b6422-7c34-5c34-b9bf-e1c9a0281bd3","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-joshua-smith-d83657","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nJoshua Smith","caseNumber":"WD83657","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-30","year":2021,"display_summary":"Joshua Smith appealed his conviction for drug and firearm offenses, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. Smith contended that he did not voluntarily consent to the warrantless entry and search of his mobile home by law enforcement due to being under the influence of narcotics. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the totality of the circumstances supported the trial court's finding that Smith's consent was voluntary and knowing.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175862","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-joshua-smith-d83657","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83384:2021-03-02","opinionId":"1fd31255-e738-5ee5-9e8b-b9b4c5ca17d5","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-godfrey-k-kirui-d83384","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nGodfrey K. Kirui","caseNumber":"WD83384","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Godfrey K. Kirui appealed his convictions for rape, kidnapping, assault, and tampering with a motor vehicle, following a bench trial. He argued that the trial court erred by not suppressing DNA evidence obtained through a warrantless search of his person, contending it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, concluding that exigent circumstances, specifically the potential destruction of perishable DNA evidence, justified the warrantless collection.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174181","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-godfrey-k-kirui-d83384","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82980:2021-02-02","opinionId":"07b84615-c4ff-556b-add2-f1989ef4f3e4","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-deion-dwayne-crum-d82980","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nDeion D'Wayne Crum","caseNumber":"WD82980","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Deion D'Wayne Crum appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his apartment. The appellate court found that the trial court improperly placed the burden of proof on Crum to show that consent to search was involuntary, rather than requiring the State to prove voluntary consent. Additionally, the trial court failed to make necessary factual determinations regarding the voluntariness of consent. The judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for reconsideration with the burden of proof correctly placed on the State.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-deion-dwayne-crum-d82980","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108605:2021-01-19","opinionId":"eabcdd3b-5689-50ac-8de4-8b4ff71f8797","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-scott-allen-utech-respondent-108605","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Scott Allen Utech, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108605","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-01-19","year":2021,"display_summary":"Scott Allen Utech was charged with driving while intoxicated and filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing the traffic stop was improper. The trial court granted the motion without findings of fact or conclusions of law. The State appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that uncontested evidence established reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop based on a computer check indicating expired license plates, despite the officer observing a current sticker and the plates ultimately not being expired. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171557","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-scott-allen-utech-respondent-108605","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36489:2020-12-08","opinionId":"d677a5ad-a67f-5bea-886d-22cd447f818a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gregory-hensley-appellant-d36489","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nGREGORY HENSLEY, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36489","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-08","year":2020,"display_summary":"Gregory Hensley appealed his convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving with excessive blood alcohol content (BAC) following a bench trial. He argued the trial court erred by not suppressing breath analysis results due to a lack of probable cause for his arrest, and that without those results, there was insufficient evidence for conviction. The appellate court affirmed his convictions, finding no clear error in the trial court's determination of probable cause. However, the court remanded the case to correct a clerical error in the written judgment regarding the BAC charge.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gregory-hensley-appellant-d36489","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83193:2020-11-10","opinionId":"0ca289d7-2608-5e10-9a69-d0ff5cfff8d4","slug":"derick-t-davis-v-state-of-missouri-d83193","caseName":"Derick T. Davis\nvs. \nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD83193","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-11-10","year":2020,"display_summary":"Derik T. Davis appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. He claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a prosecutor's comment on his failure to testify, and appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a Confrontation Clause issue regarding expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no prejudice from trial counsel's failure to object and that the Confrontation Clause claim lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=168994","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derick-t-davis-v-state-of-missouri-d83193","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108175:2020-09-01","opinionId":"ab434d15-355a-5a0d-b501-a47215401fdc","slug":"robin-l-schmidt-respondent-v-director-of-revenue-appellant-108175","caseName":"Robin L. Schmidt, Respondent, vs. Director of Revenue, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108175","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-09-01","year":2020,"display_summary":"Robin L. Schmidt's driving privileges were revoked after a blood test, obtained via a search warrant following her refusal of a breath test, showed her blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. The trial court initially sustained the revocation but later reversed itself, finding the search warrant invalid due to inaccuracies and post-issuance alteration, and excluded the blood test results. The Director of Revenue appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court's amended judgment, holding that a warrant was constitutionally required for the blood draw and that the warrant issued was valid despite minor inaccuracies and improper alteration, remanding the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=167253","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robin-l-schmidt-respondent-v-director-of-revenue-appellant-108175","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83177:2020-07-07","opinionId":"76ca425a-b6f9-52d4-8ce3-15e0fdc9096e","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jesse-b-alford-d83177","caseName":"State of Missouri vs. Jesse B. Alford","caseNumber":"WD83177","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-07-07","year":2020,"display_summary":"Jesse Alford was subjected to a traffic stop and subsequent driving while intoxicated investigation after Master Sergeant Nicholas Berry observed his vehicle parked in a restaurant entrance. Alford filed a motion to suppress all evidence, arguing the stop was not justified by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or the community caretaker function. The trial court granted the motion, finding Sergeant Berry's testimony not credible. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's suppression ruling, concluding there was no constitutionally proper basis for the stop.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=161496","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jesse-b-alford-d83177","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83251:2020-05-05","opinionId":"5dfbc3da-2b97-5099-8999-7caca1f8e222","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-kyle-matthew-ledbetter-d83251","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nKyle Matthew Ledbetter","caseNumber":"WD83251","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-05-05","year":2020,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's grant of Kyle Ledbetter's motion to suppress evidence. Ledbetter was arrested after being suspected of shoplifting, and officers conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle and a first aid kit found inside, discovering methamphetamine. The trial court suppressed the evidence, finding the search violated Ledbetter's Fourth Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the suppression ruling, concluding that the search was unreasonable as it did not fall under any exception to the warrant requirement.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=155894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-kyle-matthew-ledbetter-d83251","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35759:2020-05-01","opinionId":"639ecf92-16c8-5502-bab1-2c5d9cef823d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-justin-keith-long-defendant-appe-d35759","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJUSTIN KEITH LONG, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35759","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-01","year":2020,"display_summary":"Justin Long was convicted of driving while intoxicated following a bench trial. On appeal, Long challenged the denial of his motions to suppress evidence and statements, arguing that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion for detention, probable cause for arrest, and that the HGN and PBT results were improperly admitted. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the conviction, finding that the initial encounter was consensual, reasonable suspicion quickly developed, probable cause for arrest existed, and the HGN and PBT evidence were properly admitted.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=155993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-justin-keith-long-defendant-appe-d35759","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108332:2020-04-28","opinionId":"2b072a6d-070a-5011-8344-18f77c64fd6e","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-jeffrey-randall-lindsay-respondent-108332","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Jeffrey Randall Lindsay, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108332","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-04-28","year":2020,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's order granting Jeffrey Randall Lindsay's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless vehicle search, which formed the basis for drug charges. The trial court suppressed the evidence, finding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of illegal drugs. The Eastern District reversed, holding that while the officer lacked suspicion for a drug search, his concern for personal safety, based on Lindsay being classified as \"Caution 1\" and the vehicle's clutter, justified a protective search for weapons in the same areas where the drugs were found.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=155517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-jeffrey-randall-lindsay-respondent-108332","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107404:2020-03-31","opinionId":"88bfd931-7415-5260-a2ea-a0e167c558fb","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-harry-little-appellant-107404","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Harry Little, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED107404","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-31","year":2020,"display_summary":"Harry Little appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm following a bench trial. He challenged the denial of his motions to suppress statements made to police and evidence seized from his residence, as well as the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm charge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that any error in admitting Little's statements was harmless, the evidence suppression was properly denied under the inevitable-discovery doctrine, and sufficient evidence supported the firearm conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=153715","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-harry-little-appellant-107404","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35986:2020-02-24","opinionId":"a55a3187-a41b-574a-85b8-5268a493c7a3","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-patrick-d-friend-appellant-d35986","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nPATRICK D. FRIEND, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35986","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-02-24","year":2020,"display_summary":"Patrick D. Friend was convicted of drug trafficking after police found methamphetamine and paraphernalia in a rental car he occupied. On appeal, Friend challenged the trial court's refusal to compel his codefendant, Krista Payne, to testify, and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his awareness of the drugs. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision regarding Payne's Fifth Amendment invocation and concluding that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the jury's finding of Friend's awareness of the methamphetamine.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=150713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-patrick-d-friend-appellant-d35986","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82131:2020-02-04","opinionId":"9ea30d30-6e30-5311-b6ec-8ca5e95c2784","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-derek-l-johnson-d82131","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nDerek L. Johnson","caseNumber":"WD82131","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-02-04","year":2020,"display_summary":"Derek Johnson appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an unlawful stop and search. The appellate court reversed and remanded, vacating Johnson's conviction and sentence. It held that the initial encounter, initiated by a deputy activating emergency lights behind Johnson and a companion, constituted an unlawful detention without reasonable suspicion, rendering the subsequently obtained evidence inadmissible.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=149734","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-derek-l-johnson-d82131","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36155:2020-01-16","opinionId":"b3f7087f-8ad7-52ee-b508-8f26283d0323","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-bryan-f-burns-defendant-responden-d36155","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nBRYAN F. BURNS, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36155","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-01-16","year":2020,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed a pretrial order suppressing methamphetamine seized from Bryan F. Burns' vehicle during a traffic stop. The trial court had suppressed the evidence without explanation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred because Burns effectively consented to the search, which was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=148693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-bryan-f-burns-defendant-responden-d36155","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97811:2020-01-14","opinionId":"f9aec0b2-46cc-5546-9765-afc6a529af84","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-james-smith-appellant-c97811","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Anthony James Smith, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC97811","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2020-01-14","year":2020,"display_summary":"Anthony Smith appealed his conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. Smith contended the stop was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights because merely crossing the fog line was not a traffic violation. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that crossing the fog line and driving on the shoulder constitutes a traffic violation under section 304.015.2, RSMo, thereby providing probable cause for the traffic stop.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","other","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=148517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-james-smith-appellant-c97811","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36197:2020-01-14","opinionId":"b55bdb99-0d20-592f-8328-a4b920960f37","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-james-christopher-bales-defendant-d36197","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nJAMES CHRISTOPHER BALES, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36197","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-01-14","year":2020,"display_summary":"The State appealed the trial court's order quashing a search warrant for James Christopher Bales's cell phone and suppressing evidence in a prosecution for domestic assault and child abuse. The trial court found the warrant's description of the phone inadequate, relying on Groh v. Ramirez. The appellate court reversed, holding that the search warrant was facially valid as it sufficiently described the cell phone to be seized, making the good-faith exception unnecessary to address.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=148553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-james-christopher-bales-defendant-d36197","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81879:2019-12-10","opinionId":"5808c8e4-abf5-5f7b-9956-e66a57c79c20","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-ramon-d-boyd-d81879","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nRamon D. Boyd","caseNumber":"WD81879","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-12-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"Ramon D. Boyd appealed his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, assault, armed criminal action, and leaving the scene of a shooting. He challenged the trial court's rulings on a Batson challenge and a reverse-Batson challenge, as well as the admission of text messages from his girlfriend's phone. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no clear error in the Batson rulings and concluding that Boyd lacked standing to challenge the search of his girlfriend's phone.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-ramon-d-boyd-d81879","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed104743:2019-10-22","opinionId":"7780bb8f-5457-542f-9d2b-d6bbbf4a0785","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-d-gray-appellant-104743","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard D. Gray, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED104743","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-10-22","year":2019,"display_summary":"Richard D. Gray appealed his convictions for first-degree involuntary manslaughter and second-degree assault following a fatal single-vehicle accident. He challenged the trial court's admission of a warrantless blood draw and his statements to police, the exclusion of expert testimony regarding his general intelligence, and the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the denial of a new trial, applying the precedent set by *Mitchell v. Wisconsin* regarding warrantless blood draws.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145699","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-d-gray-appellant-104743","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107379:2019-10-01","opinionId":"435df415-0667-54d9-aaa3-5e3187a57d41","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jm-107379","caseName":"In the Interest of: J.M.","caseNumber":"ED107379","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-10-01","year":2019,"display_summary":"J.M. appealed his juvenile court conviction for unlawful use of a weapon after a handgun was found in his bag during a search at school. He challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unconstitutional, and the exclusion of a defense witness. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the school officials had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search based on J.M.'s unauthorized presence and suspicious behavior. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding the late-endorsed witness, whose testimony would have been cumulative.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jm-107379","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107245:2019-09-10","opinionId":"e4721f56-92f7-5ed3-9dcc-47661c2066bb","slug":"in-the-interest-of-le-107245","caseName":"In the Interest of: L.E.","caseNumber":"ED107245","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"L.E. appealed the juvenile court's finding that he committed unlawful use of a weapon, arguing that the school's suspicionless hand-search of his backpack, which led to the discovery of a firearm, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The juvenile court had denied his motion to suppress the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, concluding that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment's \"special needs\" doctrine for public schools, balancing L.E.'s lessened privacy interest against the compelling governmental interest in school safety.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144164","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-le-107245","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96973:2019-09-03","opinionId":"55a1a82e-3b65-5735-88dc-c3dac8f2eec9","slug":"cletus-greene-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-c96973","caseName":"Cletus Greene, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC96973","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-09-03","year":2019,"display_summary":"Cletus Greene appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress methamphetamine found in a cigarette pack. The cigarette pack was seized from his person during a lawful arrest but searched approximately 30 minutes later in a separate room. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that the delayed search of an item immediately associated with an arrestee's person is a lawful search incident to arrest and does not require contemporaneous execution or immediate control by the arrestee.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=143979","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cletus-greene-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-c96973","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81717:2019-08-06","opinionId":"c678efea-e5e6-501a-bad0-1ad4559c1eff","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-dennis-w-delapp-ii-d81717","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nDennis W. Delapp, II","caseNumber":"WD81717","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-08-06","year":2019,"display_summary":"Dennis Delapp appealed his convictions for drug and firearm offenses, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless vehicle search. The search was conducted after a confidential informant provided information and a drug dog alerted to the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the search was justified under the automobile exception and supported by probable cause from both the informant's information and the drug dog's alert.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=143114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-dennis-w-delapp-ii-d81717","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82550:2019-07-30","opinionId":"887b67dd-479b-5b00-8102-bfe9f5be04db","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-dawn-goucher-d82550","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nDawn Goucher","caseNumber":"WD82550","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-07-30","year":2019,"display_summary":"The State brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's grant of Dawn Goucher's motion to suppress her statement to law enforcement and physical evidence. Goucher, a passenger in a vehicle stopped for traffic violations, was questioned and her purse searched after the traffic stop's scope concluded. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's suppression order, finding that Goucher's statement was made during questioning outside the scope of the traffic stop and that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the nonconsensual search of her purse.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142875","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-dawn-goucher-d82550","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35351:2019-06-20","opinionId":"44474ef0-5142-522e-abb5-1c0e08658777","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-neil-n-howland-defendant-appella-d35351","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nNEIL N. HOWLAND, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35351","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-06-20","year":2019,"display_summary":"Neil N. Howland was convicted of murder and other offenses related to his mother's death. He appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress inculpatory statements, contending he had invoked his right to silence in an earlier police interview. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Howland's statements did not clearly and unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent, thus the trial court properly admitted his subsequent statements.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-neil-n-howland-defendant-appella-d35351","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81351:2019-05-28","opinionId":"365c0a14-27b6-5deb-a306-c76043164565","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-leland-dwayne-daggett-d81351","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nLeland Dwayne Daggett","caseNumber":"WD81351","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-05-28","year":2019,"display_summary":"Leland Daggett appealed his convictions for drug and firearm offenses, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from a garden. Daggett contended the garden was outside the scope of the search warrant because it was not part of the dwelling's curtilage. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the garden, located 20-30 yards from the home in a rural area and used for domestic gardening, was indeed within the curtilage, making the search authorized by the warrant.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140695","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-leland-dwayne-daggett-d81351","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96867:2018-12-18","opinionId":"ba1c6a8d-82da-5101-b410-cdd7968024d1","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-edward-hughes-appellant-c96867","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Edward Hughes, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC96867","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2018-12-18","year":2018,"display_summary":"Edward Hughes appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress drugs and drug paraphernalia found in his bag during a warrantless search incident to arrest, arguing the search violated Arizona v. Gant and State v. Carrawell. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court found it unnecessary to reach the Fourth Amendment issue, holding that any error in denying the motion to suppress was not prejudicial because sufficient additional evidence, including defense counsel's cross-examination and stipulation to lab reports, supported the conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=134575","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-edward-hughes-appellant-c96867","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35313:2018-11-13","opinionId":"11e34021-79e2-5455-8e0b-e056e24a1880","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-chadwick-l-nimmo-defendant-appel-d35313","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nCHADWICK L. NIMMO, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35313","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-11-13","year":2018,"display_summary":"Chadwick L. Nimmo appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an unlawful seizure and search of his vehicle. The trial court found two independent bases for the stop: an equipment violation and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that Nimmo failed to challenge the investigatory basis for the stop, which independently supported the trial court's ruling.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=133193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-chadwick-l-nimmo-defendant-appel-d35313","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35393:2018-10-17","opinionId":"adeea2bd-5aaa-57d7-b68b-77c5864b7302","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-natalie-lane-champagne-defendant-d35393","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nNATALIE LANE CHAMPAGNE, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35393","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-10-17","year":2018,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's order suppressing evidence in a driving while intoxicated (DWI) case against Natalie Lane Champagne. The suppression order was based on the trial court's finding that the initial traffic stop, initiated due to a single functioning brake light, was unlawful. The appellate court reversed, holding that Missouri Revised Statute § 304.019.1(4) requires all manufacturer-installed stoplights to be in operating condition, making the traffic stop lawful. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-natalie-lane-champagne-defendant-d35393","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35281:2018-10-15","opinionId":"a9b70612-a348-50c9-a5de-5d10c8aca05b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-todd-allen-greathouse-appellant-d35281","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nTODD ALLEN GREATHOUSE, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35281","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-10-15","year":2018,"display_summary":"Todd Allen Greathouse appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress his confession and the jury's viewing of his sister's police statement during deliberations. Greathouse argued his confession was coerced due to an Edwards violation, but the court found he initiated the communication and his statements were voluntary. The court also found no error in the jury viewing the sister's statement, citing Greathouse's failure to deposit the exhibit and the undisputed nature of the testimony. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132097","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-todd-allen-greathouse-appellant-d35281","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106583:2018-08-21","opinionId":"d4dc1ec4-c2a4-5e70-85b3-d61a76bf399b","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-paul-e-jinkerson-defendantrespondent-106583","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Paul E. Jinkerson, Defendant/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106583","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-08-21","year":2018,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's order granting Paul E. Jinkerson's motion to suppress statements he made to a detective. Jinkerson, charged with murder, had retained counsel who entered an appearance, but later waived his Miranda rights and spoke to a detective who was unaware he had counsel. The trial court suppressed the statements, finding Montejo v. Louisiana distinguishable. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Jinkerson's waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, consistent with Montejo, which overruled the prior Jackson presumption against such waivers.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129417","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-paul-e-jinkerson-defendantrespondent-106583","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80719:2018-08-14","opinionId":"bcc4f709-1c31-5404-a5df-393f9e2a8bae","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-cedric-dewaynne-mack-d80719","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nCedric Dewaynne Mack","caseNumber":"WD80719","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-08-14","year":2018,"display_summary":"Cedric Dewaynne Mack appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing the trial court erred by admitting his statements about drinking and a beer can in his car. Mack contended these statements were made during custodial interrogation before he received Miranda warnings, violating his privilege against self-incrimination. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that even if the admission of the statements was erroneous, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the statements were cumulative of overwhelming other evidence of intoxication.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-cedric-dewaynne-mack-d80719","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105196:2018-07-10","opinionId":"3d5ccc5c-1877-52bf-ae5d-ffc8537f56f8","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-k-byers-appellant-105196","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. David K. Byers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED105196","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-07-10","year":2018,"display_summary":"David K. Byers was convicted of driving while intoxicated following a jury trial and appealed, asserting three points of error. He argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial and his request for a curative instruction regarding a prosecutor's reference to a prior criminal case. Byers also contended the trial court erred in admitting evidence obtained from a traffic stop, claiming it violated his Fourth Amendment rights due to a lack of reasonable suspicion. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127457","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-k-byers-appellant-105196","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105350:2018-06-26","opinionId":"c35b5cc2-bb8b-596f-8784-4bdfa2b529ab","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-thomas-a-stricklin-appellant-105350","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Thomas A. Stricklin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED105350","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-26","year":2018,"display_summary":"Thomas A. Stricklin was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy, and on appeal, challenged the admission of incriminating statements made during a police interview. He argued the interview became a custodial interrogation, violating his Miranda rights, as he was never Mirandized despite repeatedly requesting a lawyer. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the interview became custodial when an officer told Stricklin he would be \"going in cuffs\" if he didn't \"settle this up,\" and therefore, the statements made after that point should have been suppressed.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=126976","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-thomas-a-stricklin-appellant-105350","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81159:2018-06-12","opinionId":"b501a82d-6586-5162-aa80-2d5d3a38bd3f","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-genevieve-sueanne-craig-d81159","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nGenevieve Sueanne Craig","caseNumber":"WD81159","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-06-12","year":2018,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed a circuit court order suppressing statements made by Genevieve Craig during the execution of a search warrant at her home. Craig, who was in custody but not yet Mirandized, made statements about brass knuckles, drug paraphernalia, and stolen tools. The circuit court suppressed all statements made after she was handcuffed and before Miranda warnings. The appellate court reversed, holding that Craig's statement about the brass knuckles was spontaneous and not the result of interrogation, and that the recitation of a search warrant is not inherently an interrogation. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine whether Craig was subjected to interrogation under the specific circumstances.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=126318","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-genevieve-sueanne-craig-d81159","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96087:2018-06-12","opinionId":"a2b8df56-1b3f-52d8-97c4-42f801681869","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-joseph-fountain-perry-appellant-c96087","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Joseph Fountain Perry, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC96087","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2018-06-12","year":2018,"display_summary":"Joseph Perry was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, he challenged the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing he was unlawfully seized, and his sentence, claiming it was based on a mistaken belief about the applicable punishment range. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the initial police encounter was consensual and did not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure, and that Perry failed to demonstrate plain error in his sentencing.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=126399","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-joseph-fountain-perry-appellant-c96087","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96095:2018-06-12","opinionId":"9e7b4492-626c-5097-a301-3bdd8c630434","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-bryan-m-pierce-appellant-c96095","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Bryan M. Pierce, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC96095","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2018-06-12","year":2018,"display_summary":"Bryan M. Pierce was found guilty of possession of child pornography after a bench trial. On appeal, he challenged the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence and his 15-year sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the search because officers did not act in bad faith, and that no plain error occurred in sentencing despite an initial misstatement of the punishment range, as the sentence was based on valid considerations and Pierce failed to show manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=126400","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-bryan-m-pierce-appellant-c96095","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80671:2018-05-29","opinionId":"0945244c-a1ca-52af-b434-ae455140269a","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-dominque-d-marchbanks-d80671","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nDominque D. Marchbanks","caseNumber":"WD80671","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-05-29","year":2018,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the circuit court's order granting Dominique Marchbanks's motion to suppress statements made during a police interview regarding a murder. Marchbanks had filed an \"Assertion of Rights\" while in custody on unrelated charges, prior to the murder interrogation. The appellate court reversed the suppression order, holding that Miranda rights cannot be anticipatorily invoked outside the context of a custodial interrogation, and therefore Marchbanks's written assertion was ineffective.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=125797","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-dominque-d-marchbanks-d80671","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34824:2018-04-30","opinionId":"674c3861-6f19-547a-9bb6-9d5db468f4c8","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keon-terrell-allen-defendant-app-d34824","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,\nv.\nKEON TERRELL ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SD34824","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-04-30","year":2018,"display_summary":"Keon Allen was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute following a bench trial. On appeal, Allen contended the trial court erred in failing to suppress drug evidence, arguing it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate contact with Allen and a reasonable, particularized suspicion that he was armed, thus justifying the pat-down search and subsequent seizure of the contraband.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=125233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keon-terrell-allen-defendant-app-d34824","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80879:2018-04-17","opinionId":"7af0c554-4fe5-5e0c-bd7c-218e4ac4c832","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-anthony-west-d80879","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nAnthony West","caseNumber":"WD80879","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-04-17","year":2018,"display_summary":"Anthony West was charged with involuntary manslaughter after a semi-truck accident. The trial court granted West's motion to suppress evidence from the truck's electronic control module (ECM), finding he had standing to challenge the warrantless search and that no warrant exceptions applied. The appellate court affirmed, holding that West had standing based on a trespassory search under United States v. Jones, and that the State failed to establish the automobile or exigent circumstances exceptions.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124678","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-anthony-west-d80879","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113216:undated","opinionId":"48893f47-857c-572d-8a9e-897ccebb0e4d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-demarcus-a-spates-appellant-113216","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Demarcus A. Spates, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113216","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2026,"display_summary":"Demarcus Spates appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, operating a motor vehicle without financial responsibility, and speeding, arguing the trial court erred by admitting statements he made during a traffic stop without Miranda warnings. The State also argued for dismissal under the escape rule due to Spates's failure to appear for sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, declining to apply the escape rule and holding that Miranda warnings were not required because the traffic stop constituted a Terry stop, not a custodial interrogation.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231039","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-demarcus-a-spates-appellant-113216","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112814:undated","opinionId":"a55ae2f0-6ee4-57d5-9123-34163716bcbc","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-joseph-j-dejoie-appellant-112814","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph J. DeJoie, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112814","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Joseph DeJoie appealed his convictions for various crimes, including involuntary manslaughter, rape, and abandonment of a corpse, following a jury trial. DeJoie challenged the constitutionality of the corpse-reporting statute, the admission of a bin containing a decomposed body, the exclusion of his expert toxicologist's opinion on cause of death, and a crime scene investigator's testimony. The appellate court affirmed all convictions, denying each of DeJoie's four points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227777","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-joseph-j-dejoie-appellant-112814","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38786:undated","opinionId":"d593f094-c54e-5155-82c5-922913ef0b0f","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-brandon-willie-walls-defendant-a-d38786","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nBRANDON WILLIE WALLS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38786","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Brandon Willie Walls was convicted of driving while intoxicated after a bench trial. On appeal, Walls argued the circuit court plainly erred by not sua sponte suppressing evidence obtained from an unlawful traffic stop, which he claimed lacked reasonable suspicion. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the conviction. The court declined plain-error review, finding that Walls failed to facially demonstrate manifest injustice because the officer's observations of traffic violations provided reasonable suspicion for the stop.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-brandon-willie-walls-defendant-a-d38786","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112932:undated","opinionId":"7ce0ebe6-023e-5304-b1c5-07c4dec98997","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-robert-yates-appellant-112932","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert Yates, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112932","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Yates was convicted on multiple counts, including first-degree drug trafficking and resisting arrest, following an emergency call at a hotel. On appeal, Yates challenged the warrantless search of his hotel room, an alleged instructional error, and the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding the warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances, the jury instruction was not plainly erroneous, and there was sufficient evidence to support all convictions.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228375","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-robert-yates-appellant-112932","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111402:undated","opinionId":"0a269c00-b86c-5a4d-9b5e-78944478d70e","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-patricia-boehmer-appellant-111402","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Patricia Boehmer, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111402","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Patricia Boehmer appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search. Boehmer contended the search was not incident to an arrest because officers did not formally arrest or handcuff her before the search. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under the totality of the circumstances, Boehmer was under arrest when the search occurred, as officers had taken control of her movements and informed her she would be booked.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-patricia-boehmer-appellant-111402","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86527:undated","opinionId":"e7d8acfd-5434-56dd-ab91-d7bf9a119436","slug":"cedric-dewayne-mack-v-state-of-missouri-d86527","caseName":"Cedric Dewayne Mack\nvs.\nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD86527","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Cedric Dewayne Mack appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence from an investigatory stop. Mack contended the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on multiple calls reporting dangerous driving and the officer's own observations, thus rendering any motion to suppress meritless.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214205","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cedric-dewayne-mack-v-state-of-missouri-d86527","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86284:undated","opinionId":"dc541ac7-b2da-5c59-8728-0602af81ad59","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-samuel-lee-hines-d86284","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nSamuel Lee Hines","caseNumber":"WD86284","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Samuel Lee Hines appealed his convictions for first-degree trafficking in fentanyl and unlawful possession of a firearm, following a bench trial. Hines contended that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove his constructive possession of the fentanyl or his purpose to traffic it. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the totality of incriminating circumstances supported the trial court's findings regarding Hines's knowledge and intent to traffic.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other","appellate-procedure","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-samuel-lee-hines-d86284","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38518:undated","opinionId":"7b952829-63bf-535e-a5b7-e38c2fb43465","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-alonzo-t-mack-appellant-d38518","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nALONZO T. MACK, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38518","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Alonzo Mack was convicted of second-degree drug trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Mack argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence from an unreasonable search and seizure and by denying his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress as the traffic stop was not concluded when consent for a pat-down was given. The court also found no speedy trial violation, as the issue was not preserved and the delay attributable to Mack reduced the total delay to less than the presumptively prejudicial period.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-alonzo-t-mack-appellant-d38518","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86556:undated","opinionId":"e8a324e2-93df-5517-b546-6ebe35d3216a","slug":"jessie-l-nelson-v-state-of-missouri-d86556","caseName":"Jessie L. Nelson\nvs.\nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD86556","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Jessie L. Nelson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Nelson claimed counsel failed to investigate employment records to impeach a witness and failed to file a motion to suppress evidence from his wife's car. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no clear error in the determination that Nelson failed to establish prejudice for the employment records claim, and no deficient performance for the suppression motion due to lack of standing.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessie-l-nelson-v-state-of-missouri-d86556","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85549:undated","opinionId":"e94eab07-a7dd-50cd-afcc-ab49c8770164","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-dakkota-siders-d85549","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nDakkota Siders","caseNumber":"WD85549","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Dakkota Siders appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shooting. Siders challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a gun found in his home and its failure to read a mandatory jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and, alternatively, the good-faith exception applied. The court also found Siders had affirmatively waived the jury instruction issue at trial.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211213","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-dakkota-siders-d85549","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86395:undated","opinionId":"3038abc9-25aa-5a79-96a3-f0a13fc93eea","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-robert-g-donnell-d86395","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nRobert G. Donnell","caseNumber":"WD86395","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert Donnell was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, burglary, and resisting arrest following a jury trial. On appeal, Donnell argued the trial court plainly erred in admitting methamphetamine found in his pocket, claiming it was the product of an unconstitutional search and seizure. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review because Donnell had affirmatively stated \"no objection\" to the evidence at trial and strategically used his possession of methamphetamine in his defense.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-robert-g-donnell-d86395","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87420:undated","opinionId":"62b1f4d6-b8b3-5fa9-886d-213384f58814","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-lisa-marie-coots-d87420","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nLisa Marie Coots","caseNumber":"WD87420","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2026,"display_summary":"Lisa Marie Coots appealed her convictions for second-degree drug trafficking and possession of drug paraphernalia, which stemmed from evidence found during a traffic stop. She argued the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the evidence and that the evidence was insufficient for the paraphernalia charge. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, finding the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. However, the court vacated the drug paraphernalia conviction, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove Coots intended to use the straw to inhale methamphetamine.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-lisa-marie-coots-d87420","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}