State v. Robinson
Decision Date | 17 February 2015 |
Docket Number | WD 77664 |
Citation | 454 S.W.3d 428 |
Parties | State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Gregory Robinson, Sr., Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Adam Stephen Rowley, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.
Clark L. Jones, Columbia, MO, for respondent.
Before Special Division: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge and Zel M. Fischer, Special Judge
The State brings this interlocutory appeal, challenging the trial court's grant of Gregory Robinson, Sr.'s (“Robinson”) motion to suppress physical evidence relating to manufacturing drugs and maintaining a public nuisance. The State argues that the trial court erred in determining that the affidavit offered in support of the search warrant for Robinson's home failed to demonstrate probable cause, and that regardless, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies because the officers acted in good faith in executing the search warrant. We agree with the trial court1 that the affidavit offered in support of the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause. However, because we agree with the State that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, we reverse.
The facts are not in dispute. Following a search pursuant to a warrant of his home in Randolph County, Robinson was charged by information with two counts: the Class A felony of manufacturing/producing or attempting to manufacture/produce more than five grams of marijuana in a residence with a child or within two thousand feet of a school, college, or school bus, in violation of Section 195.211,2 and the Class C felony of keeping or maintaining a public nuisance in violation of Section 195.130. Robinson filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the affidavit offered in support of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause.
On August 1, 2013, the issuing judge signed the warrant to search Robinson's home at 518 Porter Street in Moberly. The affidavit, sworn to by Sgt. Mark Arnsperger (“Sgt. Arnsperger”)3 was part of a warrant application dated July 31, 2013. The affidavit included a detailed description of Robinson's residence and stated in pertinent part:
The search of Robinson's residence was executed on August 2, 2013, the day after the warrant was filed. A “Return and Inventory” signed by Sgt. Arnsperger stated that he found, inter alia, what was believed to be cocaine and crack cocaine and more than $2,000 in cash.5
Prior to trial, Robinson filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized from his home. In that motion, he took issue with the statements of the two confidential sources. He argued that the statements should have fallen outside of the issuing judge's determination of probable cause because the affidavit failed to meet the fundamental requirements to credit the statements of the confidential sources under Missouri law. Specifically, Robinson argued that the information provided by the confidential sources was unreliable because the affidavit did not include a specific time and place in which the sources observed the drug trafficking, because the sources did not specifically state that they personally observed Robinson possessing the drugs, because there was no statement regarding the qualifications of the sources, and because the information was stale by the time the officer applied for a search warrant. Robinson further argued that once the statements were removed from the determination, the remaining information in the affidavit failed to provide the required probable cause for the issuing of the warrant. Robinson also contended that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule should not be applied because the affidavit was so lacking in probable cause that the good-faith exception should not salvage the search and would frustrate the purpose of the exclusionary rule.
Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court sustained the motion. In its judgment, the trial court noted that the affidavit stated that Sgt. Arnsperger had reason to believe that the two crimes had been committed and that evidence of such criminal activity is “[c]urrently contained within the above-described property currently in the possession of Gregory Robinson Sr.” The trial court found, however, that the affidavit failed to provide probable cause because “it does not set forth facts to believe that the evidence sought would be found in [Robinson's] home at the time the search warrant was issued” in violation of Robinson's constitutional rights.
The trial court stated that the information from the two sources contains “no specific time, or time frame, when the alleged illegal activity or contraband was observed”; “no facts that the informant personally observed [Robinson] in possession of contraband or personally observed seeing contraband” at the Porter Street residence; and “no qualification” of the confidants' reliability. The trial court additionally found that the information was “stale” as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bracy
...be lacking in probable cause. See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 926, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ; State v. Robinson , 454 S.W.3d 428, 442 (Mo. App. 2015) ; State v. Short , 310 Neb. 81, 964 N.W.2d 272, 313–14 (2021) ; State v. Sorensen , 688 N.W.2d 193, 196–97 (S.D. 2004)......
-
State v. Douglass
...and seizures and requires that no warrant shall issue except on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation." State v. Robinson, 454 S.W.3d 428, 437 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015); see also U.S. CONST. amend. IV ("[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ag......
-
State v. Johnson
...there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." State v. Robinson , 454 S.W.3d 428, 437 (Mo. App. 2015) (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (internal quotations omitted) ). "The presen......
-
State v. Gott
...legal bases for reversal in one point renders the point multifarious and preserves nothing for appellate review. State v. Robinson, 454 S.W.3d 428, 437 n.6 (Mo. App. 2015). This Court has discretion to review arguments made in multifarious points, but we decline to do so here because Defend......