Date: 07-29-2022

Case Style:

State of Missouri v. Theresa O'Connor

Case Number: WD85820

Judge: S. Cottony Walker

Court: Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri

Plaintiff's Attorney: Cole County Missouri District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Jefferson City Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Jefferson City, Missouri criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with drug possession.

O’Connor was charged with possession of a controlled substance pursuant to section 579.015.1 Prior to trial, O’Connor’s attorney filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the search of O’Connor’s purse, which was conducted without a warrant and pursuant to a third person’s consent.

The court conducted a hearing on O’Connor’s motion to suppress on February 14, 2022. The evidence presented during the hearing was as follows:2 On July 13, 2020, at around 8:30 a.m., Officer J. L. and a second officer with the Jefferson City Police Department responded to a "check well-being" request for two subjects in a vehicle in a bank parking lot. A male passenger in the driver’s seat was completely unclothed. A female passenger in the front passenger seat had on a shirt but no pants. Both subjects appeared to be sleeping. Officer J. L. contacted the female passenger, and the second officer contacted the male passenger. It took a couple of minutes to wake up both of the passengers, but once the officers did, both appeared to be in good health, and were not in need of medical attention. Officer J. L. testified that the officers proceeded with their investigation to get the names of the subjects and to gather information to figure out "why they were on the bank parking lot … just out of curiosity." Officer J. L. testified that he and the second officer were going to move the two subjects and then ask the bank if it wanted to pursue trespass charges.

After reviewing his report to refresh his recollection, Officer J. L. testified that in furtherance of this investigation, he advised the female passenger to exit the vehicle, at which point she was asked for her name. The female passenger identified herself as O’Connor, and volunteered that She might have an outstanding warrant. Officer J. L. asked O’Connor why she was there. O’Connor first said she and the male passenger had been in the parking lot about an hour, but later said they were there for some time. Officer J. L. asked O’Connor about, potential drug use, and she replied that she had not used drugs in several hours. Officer J. L. ran information and verified that O’Connor had an out standing warrant for her arrest.3 As a result, Officer J. L. took O’Connor "into custody and placed her in the rear seat of [his] patrol vehicle." On the floor of the vehicle where O’Connor had been sitting was a purse. Officer J. L. testified that "I asked [O’Connor] if she wanted to obtain [the purse] upon taking her into custody. She said no, to leave it there."

After Officer J. L. placed O’Connor in his patrol vehicle, he was advised by the second officer that the male passenger had given "verbal consent to search the vehicle." Officer J. L. testified that based on the male passenger’s consent, the officers searched the vehicle. Officer J. L. began his search on the passenger side of the vehicle, and searched O’Connor’s purse. Officer J. L. knew the purse belonged to O’Connor. Inside the purse, Officer J. L. found "two baggies and a couple [of] red straws that are commonly used in inhaling narcotics." The baggies contained a white powdery substance that Officer J. L. believed to be either methamphetamine or cocaine based on his training and experience.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer J. L. testified that he then read O’Connor the Miranda warning,4 and asked her about what had been located in her purse. O’Connor admitted that she is a narcotics user and said she believed one of the baggies contained either methamphetamine or cocaine.

Officer J. L. testified that the male passenger was also arrested.5 When asked to describe the next step he would take in such a situation, Officer J. L. testified "[w]e would contact the business, I guess,
and ask if they would allow the vehicle to stay there of if they would want the vehicle removed." Officer J. L. testified that "[t]he car was most likely towed from the scene per the owner’s or the bank’s request, I guess." He confirmed on cross-examination, however, that he was not the individual who arranged for the vehicle to be towed, and that he did not have a specific recollection of what happened to the vehicle.

At the conclusion of the hearing on O’Connor’s motion to suppress, the State conceded that O’Connor had a "closed container" (the purse) that belonged to her in the vehicle, but argued that O’Connor "relinquished possession of that purse to the driver when she told Officer [J. L.] ‘I don’t want to take it with me. I want to leave it with him." The State argued that consent to search the vehicle was given by the driver of the vehicle. The State conceded that "[w]hether that [consent] extended to the purse or not is arguable. But in any sense, [O’Connor] did not claim that she wanted to keep the purse with her." The State argued alternatively that the purse would have been searched in connection with an inventory search of the vehicle by the towing company because "every towing company makes sure that that happens so it’s not on the hook for anything that’s inside the car. So we have an inevitable discovery argument."

O’Connor’s counsel argued that there was no evidence permitting a conclusion that Officer J. L. reasonably believed that the male passenger’s consent to search the; vehicle extended to O’Connor’s purse; that there was no evidence of what tow companies usually do or expect; and that there was no evidence of what happened to the vehicle after O’Connor and the male passenger were arrested.

The motion to suppress was taken under advisement. The State and O’Connor submitted post-hearing briefs. Relevant to this appeal, the State’s brief in opposition to the motion to suppress argued that the evidence found in O’Connor’s purse should not be suppressed because it was obtained through a consensual search of the vehicle, and that the male passenger who gave consent to search the vehicle shared joint control over O’Connor’s purse sufficient to permit Officer J. L. to reasonably believe that the male passenger had authority to consent to a search of the purse. The State also argued, in the alternative, that the evidence discovered through the warrantless search of O’Connor’s purse should nonetheless be. admissible even if the search of the purse was constitutionally invalid because the vehicle was towed from the scene "per Jefferson City Police Department procedure," and "the contents of the car would have been inventoried per Jefferson City Police Department procedures," leading to the inevitable discovery of the contents of the purse.

In response, O’Connor filed suggestions in support of the motion to suppress, and argued that no officer could have reasonably believed that the male passenger in the vehicle had authority to consent to a search of O’Connor’s purse because there was no evidence that the male passenger possessed common authority over the purse. O’Connor also argued that there was no evidence to support a conclusion that the vehicle was towed from the scene at all, let alone pursuant to Jefferson City Police Department procedures, or, that its contents would have been inventoried pursuant to Jefferson City Police Department procedures had it been towed from the scene.

By docket entry dated March 28, 2022, the trial court noted it had considered the evidence from the hearing on the motion to suppress as well as the briefing submitted by the parties, and that the motion was denied.

Outcome: Guilty.

Reversed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: