State v. Emmett

• Decision Date: 16 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. SD 31013.,SD 31013.
• Citation: 346 S.W.3d 418
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Holly B. EMMETT, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

346 S.W.3d 418

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Holly B. EMMETT, Defendant–Respondent.

No. SD 31013.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Aug. 16, 2011.

[346 S.W.3d 418]

Stephen P. Gray, Marble Hill, MO, for Appellant.Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, MO, for Respondent.GARY W. LYNCH, Judge.

The State appeals the trial court's order granting the motion to suppress evidence filed by Holly B. Emmett (“Defendant”). Finding that the State failed to carry its burden of proof, we affirm.

[346 S.W.3d 419]

Procedural Background

The testimony of the State's witnesses presented during an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress described the following events. Lacy Willis was working as a clerk in a convenience store one evening when Defendant entered the store with a male companion. Defendant spoke with Willis while Defendant's companion browsed the aisles. Defendant and the man then went out to their car for a short while and returned. When they returned, the man spoke with Willis, and Defendant browsed the aisles. Although Willis did not see Defendant take anything from the shelves of the store, she called the authorities.

Officer Richard Dettmer was dispatched to the scene with information “[t]hat there was a white male and a white female in the parking lot and that they had put some stuff in their pockets and that they [were] still on the premises.” When Officer Dettmer arrived at the scene, he encountered Defendant and her companion in the parking lot of the convenience store. Officer Dettmer asked Defendant and her companion to come inside the store, where Willis and a customer explained the situation to the officer, “but not really in detail [.]” Based on the information Officer Dettmer obtained from Willis, he asked Defendant and her companion to empty their pockets. Defendant “had some pills in her pocket wrapped up in cellophane.” The officer suspected the pills were narcotics, and he arrested Defendant for possession of a controlled substance.

Defendant's companion was arrested on outstanding warrants. The officer advised Defendant and her companion of their Miranda¹ rights and put Defendant into a patrol car. Defendant then gave the officer consent to search her car.

A computer check revealed that the car parked in front of the convenience store belonged to Defendant. Officer Dettmer looked through the car window and saw a bottle of oil on the floorboard that matched the description of a bottle the store clerk had reported missing. Later, Officer Dettmer opened the car door to retrieve the bottle of oil and, in the middle of the seat, discovered a spoon with a white residue. In the handle of the passenger side door, he found syringes. An unlabeled prescription bottle rested on the car's floorboard. Officer Dettmer then spoke with Defendant who said that she and her companion had melted Oxycontin in the spoon and were “shooting or snorting it.”

Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in her car, claiming that Defendant's arrest was unlawful because it was made without probable cause and thus the evidence seized during the subsequent search of the car should be suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court granted the motion. The State appeals, arguing that the trial court incorrectly applied the law in granting the motion to suppress because there was probable cause to arrest Defendant for stealing and thus the subsequent search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Standard of Review

“Where a trial court has granted [a] defendant's motion to suppress, ‘we review the trial court's decision on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. Only if the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous will an appellate court reverse.” State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Mo.App.1999) (quoting State v....