State v. Daggett, WD 81351

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation575 S.W.3d 799
Docket NumberWD 81351
Parties STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Leland Dwayne DAGGETT, Appellant.
Decision Date28 May 2019

575 S.W.3d 799

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
Leland Dwayne DAGGETT, Appellant.

WD 81351

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: May 28, 2019

Katharine Curry, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, and Cynthia L. Martin, Judges

Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge


Leland Daggett (Daggett) appeals from his convictions, following a trial by jury before the Circuit Court of Henry County, Missouri. Daggett argues that the circuit court erred when it overruled his pretrial motion to suppress evidence, which included methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and firearms, seized from a garden in the vicinity of a home. Daggett contends that, while the warrant permitted a search of the home, it did not expressly authorize a search of a nearby garden; and, because the garden was not part of the dwelling’s curtilage, the search went beyond the scope of the search warrant. We affirm.

Facts & Procedure1

In July of 2015, a detective of the St. Clair Sheriff’s Department met with a confidential

575 S.W.3d 801

informant who advised him about possible drug activity occurring at 4926 SE 401 Road, Osceola, Missouri. Leland Daggett was known to have been living on the property. On July 15, 2015, the police obtained a warrant to search Daggett’s residence.2 The following day, police officers began surveilling the property at approximately 1:30 p.m. from a wooded area. The surveillance lasted four hours. During this time, officers observed various individuals coming and going from the residence and saw Daggett go to a garden located within 20-30 yards from the home "a few times."

Late in the afternoon, police observed a woman arrive at the premises. Daggett met with her for several minutes, went to his garden, and handed an item to the woman who placed it in her shirt or bra area. The exchange was consistent with a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Shortly thereafter, more police officers arrived to execute the search warrant.

Police made contact with Daggett and searched him. They found a bag in his pocket with the corners cut out of it3 and a white powdery substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. The police then searched Daggett’s garden after the surveillance team advised that Daggett had visited the garden multiple times. In the west side of the garden among some lower-lying vegetables, police found a black container that was partially buried in a "cubbyhole" and was covered by some loose hay. Inside the container, they found two digital scales, a spoon, two plastic bags, a playing card, and a large bag with 9.4 grams of crystal methamphetamine.

On the north side of the garden, among some corn plants, the officers spotted a loose pile of dirt that appeared to have recently been disturbed. They ran a metal detector over the top of the area, which signaled that there was something metal buried beneath. They unearthed a bucket with a .22 caliber revolver inside of it. The metal detector signaled again when the officers ran it over a different location in the garden (south of where they had found the black container). There they found a container that was partially submerged in another "cubbyhole" covered by some loose hay. Inside the container, the officers found a .38 Special revolver.

Daggett was subsequently charged as a prior and persistent drug offender4 with one count of attempted distribution of a controlled substance (a Class B felony) and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (a Class C felony). Daggett filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search, contending that the search exceeded the scope of the warrant and thus violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The circuit court denied the motion, "find[ing] that the garden in which the contested evidence was found

575 S.W.3d 802

and seized was within the curtilage of the residence."

Daggett was found guilty on all three counts and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for each conviction to be served concurrently. He timely appeals.


In his sole point on appeal, Daggett argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the garden (and the photographs of such evidence) in that the officers' search of the garden was not authorized by the warrant and that the garden was not within the curtilage of the home.

Review of a trial court's decision to deny a motion to suppress is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision.... Deference is given to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations. The ruling will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. The trial court ruling is clearly erroneous if this court is left with a definite and firm belief a mistake has been made. Nevertheless, whether the trial court properly applied Fourth Amendment precepts must be considered.

State v. Cromer , 186 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "Analysis of whether law enforcement conduct violates the Fourth Amendment is a legal issue that is reviewed de novo. " State v. Woodrome , 407 S.W.3d 702, 706 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).

The State contends that, although the warrant did not expressly permit the officers to search the garden, the search was nevertheless authorized because the garden was within the curtilage of the home.5 The United States Supreme Court has defined the curtilage as "the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the home’ " and is regarded as " ‘part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.’ " Fla. v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1, 6, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414, 185 L.Ed. 2d 495 (2013) (quoting Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 ). "This area around the home is ‘intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically,’ and is where ‘privacy expectations are most heightened.’ " Id. (quoting California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986) ). Similarly, Missouri courts define the curtilage " ‘as the enclosed space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling house.’ " Missouri v. Pierce , 504 S.W.3d 766, 769 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting State v. Edwards , 36 S.W.3d 22, 26 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) ). "This ‘includes all outbuildings used in connection with the residence, such as garages, sheds, barns, yards, and lots connected with or in the close vicinity of the residence.’ " Id. at 769-70 (quoting State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Davidson, SD 35760
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 5, 2020
    ...512 S.W.3d 816, 825 (Mo.App. W.D. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). We review questions of law de novo. State v. Daggett , 575 S.W.3d 799, 802 (Mo.App. W.D. 2019).AnalysisPoint I: Double JeopardyIn his first point, Davidson argues that the trial court erred in rejecting his m......
  • Pickens v. State, WD 81459
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 28, 2019
    ...the filing was deemed timely under Rule 103.06.ConclusionBecause the amended Rule 29.15 motion was untimely and the motion court did not 575 S.W.3d 799 make a timeliness or abandonment determination, we remand for it to do so. Anthony Rex Gabbert, and Edward R. Ardini, Judges concur.-------......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT