Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bryan F. BURNS, Defendant-Respondent.
The State of Missouri brings an interlocutory appeal from a pretrial order suppressing evidence seized in a warrantless search during a traffic stop.1 The State argues that the trial court erred in suppressing drugs seized from Burns' vehicle because Burns effectively consented to the search during an ongoing, valid traffic stop. We agree, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Background
A patrol officer pulled over Burns' vehicle after it failed to stop at a stop sign. A warrantless search of Burns' vehicle yielded a bag of methamphetamine. Charged with felonious drug possession, Burns moved to suppress the seized drug, arguing the search was unlawful and his consent was not voluntary. After a hearing, the trial court suppressed the evidence without explanation and this interlocutory appeal followed.
Legal Principles and Analysis
We review de novo whether the officer’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. State v. Pesce, 325 S.W.3d 565, 569 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). “ ‘An officer may at any time ask a citizen whether he has contraband in his car and may ask for permission to search; if consent is given without coercion, the subsequent search is not prohibited by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Woolfolk, 3 S.W.3d 823, 831 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999)).
Burns does not dispute the traffic stop’s validity.2 Credibility is not at issue in the dashcam video, in which Burns freely consents to a vehicle search and which flatly refutes Burns’ claims of involuntariness and illegal post-stop detention. That ends our de novo constitutional analysis. Id. The trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Missouri Court Rule 30.02 (2019); § 547.200 RSMo. Cum. Supp. (2018).
2. Burns' counsel during the motion to suppress hearing stated: “We don't object to the stop. We don't object to the investigation, up to the point where he is given a breathalyzer test[.]”
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. SD 36155
Decided: January 16, 2020
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)