State v. Ford
| Decision Date | 16 May 2000 |
| Citation | 21 S.W.3d 31 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) . State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Robert W. Ford, Respondent. Case Number: ED77451 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, Hon. William L. Syler
Counsel for Appellant: H. Morley Swingle
Counsel for Respondent: Kenton M. Hall
Opinion Summary: This is an interlocutory appeal by the State of Missouri from the trial court's order sustaining defendant Robert Ford's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Division Four holds: The trial court erred in sustaining Ford's motion to suppress because there was probable cause to issue the search warrant even though the affidavit was based on hearsay. The hearsay was corroborated by the statements of a reliable confidential informant and by direct police observations of events.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the State of Missouri pursuant to section 547.200.1(3), RSMo Cum. Supp. 1999, from the trial court's order sustaining Defendant Robert Ford's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. We reverse and remand.
On October 8, 1998, a prosecuting attorney from Cape Girardeau County applied for a search warrant to search the premises of Robert W. Ford (Defendant) and Beverly Ford at 485 Chillicothe Lane, Jackson, Missouri. The application asserted that the State had reason to believe that methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine would be located on the premises.
Attached to the application for the search warrant was the affidavit of William J. Bohnert, an officer with the Cape Girardeau Police Department. In pertinent part, the affidavit averred as follows:
3. Within the past two weeks, I was contacted by a confidential informant, herein referred to as "CI." CI has proven to be a reliable informant in the past concerning narcotics investigations; CI has provided me with information which has lead to multiple arrests. CI told me that within the past thirty days, CI was in the residence of Shantel Cline, Brookwood Trailer Court, Lot 183, Oriole, Missouri. CI was informed by Shantel Cline that methamphetamine could be purchased from "Bob" and "Bev." Shantel Cline stated that she would take CI's money, while CI waited at Shantel Cline's residence, drive to "Bob" and "Bev's" residence, purchase the methamphetamine, and then return to the CI.
4. On September 10, 1998, I met CI at a predetermined meeting place. I searched CI to ensure that CI did not have any money or other contraband in CI's possession. At this time I gave CI a quantity of United States currency to purchase methamphetamine. CI then drove to Shantel Cline's residence, I maintained constant observation of CI from the time CI left the predetermined meeting place to the time CI went to Shantel Cline's residence. A short time after CI went into Shantel Cline's residence, Shantel Cline left her residence; got into CI's vehicle and drove directly to 485 Chillicothe Lane, Jackson, Missouri. I was in constant view of Shantel Cline the entire way. She then went into the trailer at 485 Chillicothe Lane. Sometime later, Shantel Cline came out of the trailer, got back into CI's vehicle and returned to her residence. CI informed me that upon her return, Shantel Cline informed CI that she was unable to purchase methamphetamine because they were having trouble with the "cooking" process.
5. On September 24, 1998, I met CI at a predetermined meeting place. Once again, I searched CI to ensure that CI did not have any money or other contraband in CI's possession. I gave CI a quantity of United States Currency to purchase methamphetamine. CI then departed for Shantel Cline's residence. I was in constant observation of CI from time CI left the predetermined meeting place to the time CI went to Shantel Cline's residence. A short time after CI went into Shantel Cline's residence, Shantel Cline left her residence; got into CI's vehicle and drove directly to 485 Chillicothe Lane, Jackson, Missouri. I was in constant view of Shantel Cline the entire way. She then went into the trailer at 485 Chillicothe Lane. Sometime later, Shantel Cline came out of the trailer, got back into CI's vehicle and returned to her residence. CI left the trailer and I met CI at a predetermined location, at which time CI gave me a small plastic bag containing methamphetamine. The CI then informed me that Shantel Cline had given her the methamphetamine.
6. On September 28, 1998, I met CI at a predetermined meeting place. Once again, I searched CI to ensure that CI did not have any money or other contraband in CI's possession and I gave CI a quantity of United States Currency to purchase methamphetamine. I was in constant observation of CI from the time we left the predetermined meeting place to the time we went to Shantel Cline's residence. On this occasion when the CI went to the Shantel Cline's residence, Shantel Cline called "Bob" and "Bev" to make arrangements to pick up methamphetamine. "Bob" and "Bev" advised that they thought their house was under surveillance by police and that Shantel Cline should not come.
7. On October 6, 1998, I met CI at a predetermined meeting place. Once again, I searched CI to ensure that CI did not have any money or other contraband in CI's possession and gave CI a quantity of United States Currency to purchase methamphetamine. I was in constant observation of CI from the time we left the predetermined meeting place to the time we went to Shantel Cline's residence. Sometime later, CI returned to her car and I met her at the predetermined meeting place. CI told me that when CI went to Shantel Cline's residence, Shantel Cline contacted "Bob" and "Bev" who informed Shantel Cline that they did not have any methamphetamine at that time, but they would be making more methamphetamine in a couple of days.
8. I met CI at a predetermined location on October 8, 1998. I searched CI to ensure that CI did not have any money or other contraband in CI's possession and gave CI a quantity of United States Currency to purchase methamphetamine. I was in constant observation of CI from the time we left the predetermined meeting place to the time we went to Shantel Cline's residence. The CI, Shantel Cline, and Shantel Cline's son all got into the CI's vehicle and drove to a Citgo station located on Missouri Highway 177, Cape Girardeau. The CI and Cline's son got out of the car at the Citgo and went inside, while Shantel Cline drove to "Bob" and "Bev's" trailer. I was in constant view of Shantel Cline the entire way. She then went into the trailer at 485 Chillicothe Lane, Jackson, Missouri. Sometime later, Shantel Cline came out of the trailer, got back into CI's vehicle and returned to the Citgo station on Highway 177 to retrieve the CI and Shantel Cline's son. They then returned to Shantel Cline's residence. CI left the trailer and I met CI at a predetermined location. CI stated Shantel Cline told CI that "Bob" and "Bev" were trying to dry the methamphetamine with fans and air conditioners. The CI then informed me that Shantel Cline said the methamphetamine should be dry around 5:00 p.m. today, October 8, 1998.
9. I contacted Citizen's Electric Corporation concerning utility records of 485 Chillicothe Lane, Jackson, Missouri. I was informed that utilities for that address have been listed under the name of Robert W. Ford since February, 1995.
After reviewing the application and the affidavit, Circuit Court Judge Gary A. Kamp issued a search warrant for Defendant's home at 485 Chillicothe Lane, finding there was probable cause to issue the warrant. Pursuant to the warrant, police searched the home and found drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and methamphetamine. The State charged Defendant by information with possession of methamphetamine, section 195.202, RSMo, misdemeanor possession of marijuana, section 195.202, possession of drug paraphernalia, section 195.233, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, section 568.045.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized at his home contending the warrant failed to state adequate facts to establish probable cause to search the premises. The trial court sustained Defendant's motion and suppressed the evidence. The State files this interlocutory appeal under section 547.200.1(3).
In its appeal, the State argues the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to suppress because under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit presented sufficient facts to establish probable cause to issue the warrant. In response, Defendant contends the affidavit failed to state sufficient facts to show probable cause because it was based on multiple levels of hearsay without a showing of the reliability of each declarant.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has held that in determining if there is probable cause to issue a search warrant, the issuing judge is "simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hawkins
...information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'" State v. Ford, 21 S.W.3d 31, 35 (Mo. App. 2000) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). Importantly, an issuing judge may "'draw reasonable inferences concer......
-
State v. Rush
...erroneous, we look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the search warrant. Baker, 103 S.W.3d at 720; State v. Ford, 21 S.W.3d 31, 34 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). "[P]robable cause must be found within the four corners of the search warrant application and supporting affidavits." State v......
-
State v. Deaton
...intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the commonsense, practical question of whether there is probable cause....” State v. Ford, 21 S.W.3d 31, 34–35 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)) (internal quotations omitte......
-
State v. Bryan, WD 80591
...to determining probable cause, are not separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case...." State v. Ford , 21 S.W.3d 31, 34 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). "They should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illumin......