St. Louis County Courts



IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURISTATE OF MISSOURI,Plaintiffv.JOHN DOE,DefendantCause No. 18SL-CROxxxx-01 Division No. 7MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE NOTICE OF HEARING:7/27/18 at 1:30 PMCOMES NOW Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, Attorney Name, Assistant Public Defender, and hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order suppressing from the use in evidence the .380 pistol allegedly found on Defendant's person. In support thereof, Defendant states the following :Statement of FactsMr. Doe is charged by information with one count, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a felon, in violation of Section 571.070, RSMo. Mr. Doe is alleged to have knowingly possessed a Taurus 380 pistol on March 19, 2018.According to the police report, around llpm, Corporal was dispatched to the home of Ms. for an alleged domestic assault. He was advised by dispatch that there was a weapon in the residence possessed by the male involved in the domestic, who was later identified as. Upon arrival at the residence, Cpl. observed Mr. Doe and Mr. with boxes and bags in their hands on the front porch. Cpl. ordered Mr. Doe and Mr. to put the boxes down and keep their hands where he could see them ; Mr. Doe and Mr. complied with these commands.Officer then approached Mr. Doe and Mr.. Officer then arrived on the scene and took Doe to perform a Terry Frisk. Before Officer began the Terry Frisk, Cpl. asked Mr. Doe if he was in possession of a weapon. Mr. Doe stated he had no idea about a weapon involved in any parties involved. Officer proceeded to perform the frisk in front of Cpl. . Officer did not have a warrant to arrest or search Mr . Doe. Mr. Doe did not consent to the search. Officer Jeffers found a pistol in Mr. Doe's pocket.Law and ArgumentThe Terry stop and frisk was unlawful, in that there was no reasonable suspicion that Mr. Doe had done or was about to do something illegal. Additionally, the search was not justified by officer safety concerns because Cpl., Officer, and Officer did not have a reasonable particularized suspicion that Mr. Doe was armed.A common exception to the warrant requirement is the Terry stop, which permits officers to make a brief investigatory stop if they have reasonable suspicion that illegal activity has occurred or is occurring. Under this exception, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling these suspicions. State v. Lovelady , 432 S.W.3d 187, 191(Mo banc 2014). Suspicion is reasonable if the officer is able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. Id.A stop based on reasonable suspicion does not automatically allow police officers to search the stopped individual. "Once a valid stop has been made, police may pat a suspect's clothing if they have a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the suspect is armed." State v. Leavitt , 993 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). " The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence ." State v. Rushing , 935 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. Banc 1996).The only information that the police had at the time they arrived at the house was that there was a possible domestic violence incident between and, and that there was a weapon inside the house. They had not received any information that Mr. Doe was doing anything illegal or suspicious, and they did not witness him doing anything illegal or suspicious. Therefore, they did not have the necessary reasonable suspicion to perform a Terry stop and frisk.When Mr. Doe submitted to authority by dropping his boxes and bags and putting his hands up, he was seized. At the time of the seizure, there was not probable cause that he had done something illegal."A seizure occurs only when an individual is subject to the application of physical force or voluntarily submits to the assertion of police authority . In determining whether a police encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the officer's conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not free to leave." State v. Gabbert , 213 S.W.3d 713, 718-9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007), quoting State v. Stacy , 121 S.W.3d 328, 332 (Mo. App.W.D. 2003). In Gabbert , the Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of a knife found on Mr . Gabbert's person because it was a seizure when the officer ordered him to remove his hands from his pockets, and the officer did not have probable cause.When Mr. Doe was ordered to drop his boxes and put his hands up, and he complied, he was seized. Before that point, the police did not have probable cause to seize him, because they had no reason to believe that he had done anything illegal.WHEREFORE, the defendant requests that the firearm seized in this case be suppressed, and for such other and further orders as the court deems proper . Denying this motion would violate his rights under the Fourth , Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 10, 15 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution and Section 542.296 RSMo. The Defendant also respectfully requests written findings of fact and conclusions of law.Respectfully submitted, /s/ Attorney Name1749425698500Attorney Name, Mo Bar No. Attorney for DefendantAddressPhone: Fax: Certificate of ServiceI hereby certify that on this 20th day of June, 2018, an electronic copy of the foregoing was sent through the Missouri e-Filing system to counsel of record.174942541719500/s/ Attorney Name ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download