Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

BRANDON PATRICK TEEL, Defendant- Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
brandon-patrick-teel-defendant
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving BRANDON PATRICK TEEL, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / May 31, 2022

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BRANDON PATRICK TEEL, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

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.