Missouri Criminal Law UpdateChris Koster, Attorney General

march case law update...

In this edition we discuss two deci-sions from the United States Supreme Court, one from the Missouri Supreme Court, and two from the Missouri Court of appeals. Two of the cases, Jones and McNeeley, deal with the war-rant requirement. Another two, Perry and Harris, concern the admissibility of evidence. The last case, Prokes, of-fers a cautionary tale about exculpa-tory evidence.

Chris Koster Attorney General

WARRANTS

UNiTed STATeS v. JoNeS, U.S. SUpReme CoURT, Case No. 10-1259 (JaNuary 23, 2012)

Key Facts: Investigators obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car within ten days, but they were not able to install it until after the warrant expired. Pros-ecutors introduced data from the device to place the suspect at locations where narcotics operations were conducted.

court ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the installation of the GPS devise was a search. For techni-cal reasons, however, the Court did not decide whether use of such devices might be permitted under the automobile excep-tion to the warrant requirement. Nor did the Court decide whether police must obtain a warrant before downloading GPS data from a device already installed by the manufacturer. Until those questions are answered in future rulings, the best prac-tice is to get a warrant or equivalent court order supported by a showing of probable cause before installing a GPS device on the car or requesting data from a manufacturer-installed GPS.

STATe v. TyleR mCNeeley, miSSoURi SUpReme CoURT, Case No. sC91850 (JaNuary 17, 2012)

Key Facts: Defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Without first obtaining a warrant, the officer ordered medical personnel to take a blood sample to deter-mine the suspect’s blood alcohol level.

court ruling: In a unanimous decision, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the natural decline of blood alcohol levels over time is not enough by itself to fall within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. How-ever, the Court suggested that if a legitimate obstacle would prevent the officer from obtaining a warrant for an extended period (i.e. more than an hour or two), exigent circumstances may still apply. In all other circumstances, a warrant will be necessary if the suspect refuses to submit to a blood test.

March 2012 | Missouri Criminal Law Update 1

2 March 2012 | Missouri Criminal Law Update

Missouri Criminal Law UpdateChris Koster, Attorney General

AdmiSSiBiliTy

peRRy v. NeW HAmpSHiRe, U.S. SUpReme CoURT, Case No. 10-8974 (JaNuary 11, 2012)

Key Facts: Police responded to a call that someone was trying to break into cars in the parking lot of an apartment complex. Upon arriving at the complex, one officer detained a suspect in the parking lot who was holding two amplifiers while another officer went to interview the caller. When the second officer asked the caller to describe the suspect, the caller walked to her window and pointed at the suspect with the other officer in the parking lot.

court ruling: The Supreme Court held, eight to one, that the identification was admissible in court even though it was obtained through a suggestive procedure because the police did not do anything wrong. The exclusionary rule, which requires the suppression of improperly obtained evidence, is meant to deter po-lice misconduct. If there is no police misconduct, the exclusionary rule does not apply. Here, the improperly conducted identification was caused by the witness her-self and could not be held against the police.

It’s important to understand, however, that this case does not set out best practices, and identifications should still be conducted according to proper police procedure. Suggestive identifications orchestrated by police may still be challenged in court.

STATe v. JAmeS HARRiS, miSSoURi CoURT of AppeAlS, eASTeRN diSTRiCT, Case NuMber eD96045 (DeCeMber 20, 2011)

Key Facts: During trial for statutory sodomy of his former live-in girlfriend’s daughter, the defendant sought to introduce text messages a babysitter had allegedly re-ceived from the victim. The trial court allowed the baby-sitter to testify about the text messages, but prohibited the jury from seeing the actual text messages on the phone.

court ruling: The Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of the text messages because the defense had not introduced a foundation to show that the messages were in fact sent by the victim. However, the Court went on to say that the requirements for authenticating text messages were similar to those for personal letters, and it suggested several ways (beyond an admission from the author that he sent the message) that author-ship could be proved: 1) testimony from the author that the phone number from which the text was sent be-longs to his phone and that he had control of the phone at the time the message was sent; 2) testimony from the recipient of the message that he regularly receives texts from the author from that phone number; and 3) testimony from the recipient that something in the mes-sage identifies the author, such as information only the author would know. In the absence of evidence as to authorship, texts are not admissible.

for additional information on these cases please contact page Bellamy, Chief Counsel, public Safety division at 573-751-4418; Shaun mackelprang, Chief Counsel, Criminal division at 573-751-0272; or Terrence messonnier, Assistant Attorney General, public Safety at 816-889-5031.

3 March 2012 | Missouri Criminal Law Update

Missouri Criminal Law UpdateChris Koster, Attorney General

eXCUlpAToRy evideNCe

STATe eX Rel. JACkSoN CoUNTy pRoSeCUTiNG ATToRNey v. THe HoNoRABle RoGeR pRokeS, miSSoURi CoURT of AppeAlS, WeSTeRN diSTRiCT, Case No. WD 72996 (DeCeMber 20, 2011)

Key Facts: A jury convicted Richard Buchli in 2007 for the murder of his law partner despite seeing por-tions of a security tape that, Buchli argued, showed him leaving the building too early to have committed the murder. Prosecutors convinced the jury that the time stamp on the tape was inaccurate and therefore didn’t disprove Buchli’s guilt. But in his petition for post-con-viction relief, Buchli argued that the State only disclosed part of the tape to him and that, had prosecutors turned over the entire tape, the jury would have seen that the time stamp was accurate.

The post-conviction motion court ordered a new trial based on the State’s failure to disclose exculpatory evi-dence. During subsequent pre-trial proceedings, pros-ecutors were unable to verify the accuracy of their prior discovery responses. The trial court entered a discovery order with specific time limits for the State to verify its responses. When the State was unable to comply with the dates in that order, the trial court excluded all the State’s evidence against Buchli.

court ruling: In an eight to two decision, the full Court of Appeals held that striking all the State’s evidence is an authorized sanction for failure to com-ply with discovery orders. The harshness of the result serves as a warning to police and prosecutors to keep clear records of the evidence they obtain and what has been disclosed to the defense. For example, in a case with a large number of police reports and other docu-ments, prosecutors should use a Bates stamp to number all pages, and discovery responses should reflect which pages have been disclosed.

for additional information on these cases please contact page Bellamy, Chief Counsel, public Safety division at 573-751-4418; Shaun mackelprang, Chief Counsel, Criminal division at 573-751-0272; or Terrence messonnier, Assistant Attorney General, public Safety at 816-889-5031.