State v. Waldrup, No. SC 90978.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtWILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Chief Justice.
Citation331 S.W.3d 668
Docket NumberNo. SC 90978.
Decision Date01 March 2011
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent,v.Jacob WALDRUP, Jr., Appellant.

331 S.W.3d 668

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Jacob WALDRUP, Jr., Appellant.

No. SC 90978.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

March 1, 2011.


[331 S.W.3d 670]

S. Kathleen Webber, Public Defender's Office, Kansas City, for Waldrup.James B. Farnsworth, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, for the State.WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Chief Justice.I. Introduction

Mr. Jacob Waldrup, Jr., appeals his conviction of possessing a controlled substance (section 195.202).1 Mr. Waldrup's sole point on appeal claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and overruling objections to admission of evidence and its accompanying testimony.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

II. Facts and Procedural History

In the light most favorable to the ruling, State v. Oliver, 293 S.W.3d 437, 442 (Mo. banc 2009), the facts are as follows. On November 9, 2006, Troopers Seth Isringhausen and Gregory Primm were engaged in a driver's license checkpoint, located at the northbound exit ramp of 1–35 to Parvin Road, in Clay County, Missouri. At approximately 3:45 p.m.,2 their attention was drawn to a 1988 blue Chevy Camaro approaching the checkpoint. Specifically, the moment the passenger of the car, Mr. Waldrup, took notice of the troopers his “eyes opened wide, [and] his mouth kind of hung open, as if ... concerned with [the troopers'] presence.” Both troopers then clearly observed Mr. Waldrup duck “very far” into the floorboard, “reaching for something or stuffing something down around his feet.” The troopers noted the behavior as “a very unusual action,” confirming with one another that it was a “higher risk” contact.

As the Camaro approached the checkpoint, the troopers' primary concerns were that of their own safety and the safety of others within the vicinity. Trooper Primm testified that Mr. Waldrup's actions raised some alarm, because a person approaching a checkpoint in that manner “could either be trying to retrieve a weapon, hide a weapon or any type of contraband a person may not want a law enforcement officer to see.”

[331 S.W.3d 671]

Trooper Isringhausen approached the driver of the vehicle, Gerald L. Shields, as Trooper Primm approached the passenger side, in case Mr. Waldrup had “bad intentions.” Pursuant to Trooper Isringhausen's request, Mr. Shields presented him with a Kansas driver's license. A standard “radio check” revealed that Mr. Shield's license was suspended. Trooper Isringhausen issued a citation to that effect and released Mr. Shields after a “minute or two.”

Simultaneously, Trooper Primm investigated Mr. Waldrup's abnormal behavior. Mr. Waldrup was asked to exit the Camaro, while Trooper Primm performed a cursory plain-view scan of the vehicle for weapons. Trooper Primm testified that the motivation behind having Mr. Waldrup exit the vehicle was “to ensure that he didn't, in fact, intend to retrieve any weapons or anything that might pose a danger to [the troopers] or anybody else.” Trooper Primm then performed a Terry frisk on Mr. Waldrup, parting-down his outer clothing for weapons. As he was conducting the pat-down search, he explained to Mr. Waldrup what he was doing, asked a few investigatory questions and attempted to elicit Mr. Waldrup's identity. Mr. Waldrup did not have identification, but he provided Trooper Primm with his name, date of birth, and social security number.

At this point in the investigation, Trooper Isringhausen finished with Mr. Shields. Trooper Primm relayed the identifying information provided by Mr. Waldrup to Trooper Isringhausen, so a “radio check” could be performed. While Trooper Isringhausen did so, Trooper Primm felt it necessary to remain with Mr. Waldrup, “because [he] wasn't certain at that point that he was no longer a threat....” The troopers noted that throughout their encounter with Mr. Waldrup he was “acting differently,” as if he were under the influence of some substance or suffered from a mental or physical disability. The “radio check” revealed that Mr. Waldrup had several outstanding warrants for his arrest.

Once the troopers were informed of the warrants, Mr. Waldrup was immediately arrested, handcuffed, and given a full-body search. The search revealed $365 tucked into Mr. Waldrup's right sock and a cocaine-base “white rock” stuffed between the cushion and sole of Mr. Waldrup's right shoe. In addition to the search of Mr. Waldrup's person, the troopers felt it prudent to perform a more thorough search of the vehicle Mr. Waldrup arrived in.

Approximately “ten to fifteen” minutes after the troopers first took notice of the Camaro, Mr. Waldrup was transported to the Clay County detention center. On the way to the detention center, Mr. Waldrup “passed out” in the patrol car. He was awakened at the detention center at 4:24 p.m. and, after being read his Miranda rights, stated that he thought the drug in his shoe was cocaine and indicated that he had consumed cocaine, PCP, and insulin earlier in the day.

Mr. Waldrup was charged with possession of a controlled substance, pursuant to section 195.202. Prior to trial, defense counsel entered a motion to suppress the “white rock” found in Mr. Waldrup's shoe, arguing that once Trooper Isringhausen issued a ticket to Mr. Shields and released him, the purpose of the checkpoint stop had been fulfilled and therefore Mr. Waldrup's continued detention, and the subsequent computer check of his identification, was not justified. Thus, he argued, the evidence seized should be excluded as the product of an unlawful search and seizure. At the suppression hearing, the motion was overruled.

Trial was held in the circuit court of Clay County, where the “white rock” found

[331 S.W.3d 672]

in Mr. Waldrup's shoe was entered into evidence over defense counsel's objection. Trooper Isringhausen and Trooper Primm testified as to discovering and seizing the crack cocaine, while criminalist James Burgio confirmed the cocaine base of the “white rock.” Counsel objected to the testimonial evidence concerning the cocaine, but was again overruled and granted a continuing objection.

A jury found Mr. Waldrup guilty of the charged offense. At sentencing, the court found Mr. Waldrup to be a prior and persistent drug offender, pursuant to sections 195.275 and 195.285.2, and sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment in the department of corrections.

III. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Overruling Mr. Waldrup's Motion to Suppress and Overruling His Objections at Trial

Mr. Waldrup claims the trial court clearly erred and abused its discretion in overruling his motion to suppress and in overruling his objections to admission of the “white rock” and testimony of Trooper Isringhausen, Trooper Primm, and criminalist James Burgio, regarding the discovery, seizure, and testing of the “white rock,” because the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress in the light most favorable to the ruling, disregarding any contrary evidence or adverse inferences. Oliver, 293 S.W.3d at 442. The inquiry is limited to determining if the decision is supported by substantial evidence, whether that evidence is presented at the suppression hearing itself or during trial. Id.; State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511, 530 (Mo. banc 2003). While “a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous,” a determination as to whether conduct violates the Fourth Amendment is an issue of law that this Court reviews de novo. State v. Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Mo. banc 2007).

Analysis
A. Mr. Waldrup's Detention Was Lawful

A lawful search or seizure must not impinge upon the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment,3 namely the right of citizens “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Oliver, 293 S.W.3d at 442; U.S. Const. amend. IV. Reasonableness, therefore, is the “touchstone” of the Fourth Amendment. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 855 n. 4, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). Generally, “warrantless seizures are unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional.” State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, 472 (Mo. banc 2005). The Supreme Court of the United States, however, found exception to this general rule in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), permitting officers to make a brief, investigatory stop if they are able to point to “specific articulable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • State v. Grayson, SC 90971.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 29, 2011
    ...this Court analyzed the issue as if the tipster were anonymous. Id. 4. The instant case is distinguishable from State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668 (Mo. banc 2011), in which there was no unreasonable seizure because the police had a lawful basis for the initial stop and had continued concern a......
  • State v. Brown, WD 73142.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 20, 2012
    ...against unreasonable searches and seizures.” “Reasonableness, therefore, is the ‘touchstone’ of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 672 (Mo. banc 2011). As a general rule, warrantless seizures are unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional. State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, ......
  • THE ORIGINS AND LEGACY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REASONABLENESS-BALANCING MODEL.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 Nbr. 1, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...(Colo. 2013); Shotts v. State, 925 N.E.2d 719, 723 (Ind. 2010); State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224, 228 (Minn. 2016); State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 672 (Mo. 2011); State v. Gathers, 190 A.3d 409, 415 (N.J. 2018); People v. Molnar, 774 N.E.2d 738, 739-40 (N.Y. 2002); Commonwealth v. Jacob......
  • State v. Johnson, ED 100856.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 8, 2014
    ...the officers' actions were “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial interference. State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Mo. banc 2011) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 19–20, 88 S.Ct. 1868). An evaluation of whether the reasonable suspicion standard has been......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • State v. Brown, No. WD 73142.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 20, 2012
    ...against unreasonable searches and seizures.” “Reasonableness, therefore, is the ‘touchstone’ of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 672 (Mo. banc 2011). As a general rule, warrantless seizures are unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional. State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, ......
  • State v. Grayson, No. SC 90971.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 29, 2011
    ...this Court analyzed the issue as if the tipster were anonymous. Id. 4. The instant case is distinguishable from State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668 (Mo. banc 2011), in which there was no unreasonable seizure because the police had a lawful basis for the initial stop and had continued concern a......
  • State v. Johnson, No. ED 100856.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 8, 2014
    ...the officers' actions were “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial interference. State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Mo. banc 2011) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 19–20, 88 S.Ct. 1868). An evaluation of whether the reasonable suspicion standard has been......
  • State v. Higgs, WD 84161
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 3, 2022
    ...the totality of the circumstances in order to evaluate whether the standard for reasonable suspicion has been met. State v. Waldrup , 331 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)."Generally, ‘warrantless seizures are unreasonable......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE ORIGINS AND LEGACY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REASONABLENESS-BALANCING MODEL.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 Nbr. 1, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...(Colo. 2013); Shotts v. State, 925 N.E.2d 719, 723 (Ind. 2010); State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224, 228 (Minn. 2016); State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 672 (Mo. 2011); State v. Gathers, 190 A.3d 409, 415 (N.J. 2018); People v. Molnar, 774 N.E.2d 738, 739-40 (N.Y. 2002); Commonwealth v. Jacob......

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