STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DONALD K. HARDY
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 792
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Missouri defendant Donald K. Hardy was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute under §195.211.
- A search warrant authorized a search of Hardy’s home and surrounding vehicles on SE 356 Private Rd, St. Clair County.
- The warrant described the mobile home as the first house on the left, with a white bus parked in front; respondents argued this description was inaccurate.
- Evidence seized included methamphetamine, digital scales, baggies, and a bus converted to a shop with scales in it, and methamphetamine in Hardy’s truck.
- Sergeant Bartlett and Deputy Crocker relied on a CI tip and observations from GPS tracking and prior familiarity with the area to obtain and execute the warrant.
- The trial court denied suppression, and Hardy appealed, arguing the warrant lacked sufficient particularity to identify the correct premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant sufficiently described the premises to be searched. | Hardy | Hardy | No, description was sufficient under applicable standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cummings, 714 S.W.2d 877 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986) (adequate specificity to locate the searched premises; practical accuracy governs)
- U.S. v. Dorrough, 927 F.2d 498 (10th Cir. 1991) (describes variation in specificity for rural vs urban areas)
- U.S. v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369 (8th Cir. 1979) (partial inaccuracies in address may be tolerated if otherwise specific)
- Lora-Solano, 330 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that a technically wrong address does not invalidate a warrant when other details are sufficient)
- State v. Johnson, 354 S.W.3d 627 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; substantial evidence with deference to trial court)