State v. Schweitzer, 65137
| Decision Date | 26 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 65137,65137 |
| Citation | 879 S.W.2d 594 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. James M. SCHWEITZER, Jr., Defendant/Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John G. Meyer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Franklin County, Union, for plaintiff, appellant.
Frank K. Carlson, Carlson and Hellmann, Union, for defendant, respondent.
Defendant, James M. Schweitzer, Jr., was charged by indictment with one count of manufacture of a controlled substance by growing or cultivating it in violation of § 195.211 RSMo 1986, one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.020 RSMo 1986, and two other offenses unrelated to the issues on appeal. The trial court sustained his motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of warrantless entries onto his property on August 18, August 22, and August 23, 1991. The state filed an interlocutory appeal from the order of suppression pursuant to § 547.200 RSMo 1986. The only issue presented is whether the state proved the warrantless seizure of marijuana plants found growing on defendant's property took place in an open field, thus making the evidence admissible under the open fields exception to the Fourth Amendment. We affirm.
The overriding principle of law involved is the constitutional protection of citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring the authorities to secure a search warrant based on probable cause, "describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized ..." U.S. Const., Amend. IV; Mo. Const. Art. 1, § 15. "[A]ll warrantless searches, subject only to a few well delineated exceptions, are per se constitutionally offensive." State v. Peterson, 525 S.W.2d 599, 603 (Mo.App.1975) citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-455, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).
When reviewing the trial court's order, the facts, and reasonable inferences arising therefrom, are to be considered favorably to the order challenged on appeal. We must disregard contrary evidence and inferences, and will affirm the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress if the evidence is sufficient to sustain its findings. State v. Jacobs, 704 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Mo.App.1986).
The facts of this case were developed at an evidentiary hearing held on September 13, 1993. On August 12, 1991, a confidential informant reported to a St. Clair, Missouri, police officer that in June of 1991, he saw what he believed to be marijuana plants growing on defendant's property, located in Franklin County, Missouri, outside the City of St. Clair. The informant believed the plants were no longer there. Allegedly based on this tip, the St. Clair officer and the informant entered defendant's property on August 18, 1991. Defendant's premises were subsequently visited by two members of the Franklin County Task Force on August 22, 1991, and again by the St. Clair officer and one of the task force officers on August 23, 1991. The officers never sought defendant's permission to enter the premises or requested a search warrant.
Access to defendant's property was blocked by a steel gate secured with a large iron chain and padlock. The officers unlocked the gate with a key provided by the informant, and traveled down the gravel private road or driveway. There were dwellings on the property. Defendant's garden area was located across the driveway from the dwellings. The five marijuana plants seized were visible only on the ground after walking through about eighteen rows of corn into the garden. There was no evidence they were seen or could have been seen from any other place of observation.
The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures inherently acknowledges the sanctity of a person's home and extends protection to the curtilage of the home. State v. Adams, 791 S.W.2d 873, 877 (Mo.App.1990). The United States Supreme Court has defined curtilage utilizing four factors: (1) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kelly
...all "out-buildings" connected with or close to the residence, such as garages, sheds, barns, yards and lots. State v. Schweitzer, 879 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Mo.App. E.D.1994); State v. Fierge, 673 S.W.2d 855, 856 (Mo.App. E.D.1984). Whether a particular area is curtilage depends on four factors: ......
-
State v. Charlton
...his home and was, therefore, subject to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. See State v. Schweitzer, 879 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). However, the issue whether the deputies' entry on Appellant's property violated the Fourth Amendment is irrelevant ......
-
State v. Daggett
...use (the third factor) also weighs in favor of finding that the garden was within the curtilage of the home. See State v. Schweitzer , 879 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) (deferring "to the trial court's implied finding that the garden area was within the curtilage of defendant's home,......
-
State v. Kriley
...space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling house ..."), subject to Fourth Amendment protection, State v. Schweitzer, 879 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Mo.App.1994), unless it was open to the public. Akers, 723 S.W.2d at 14-15. The question is whether it was open to the At the heari......