State of Missouri v. Gregory Robinson, Sr.
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 154
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Police obtained a warrant (July 31, 2013) to search Gregory Robinson Sr.'s home at 518 Porter St., Moberly; search executed August 2, 2013 and officers seized suspected cocaine/crack and cash.
- Affidavit by Sgt. Mark Arnsperger relied principally on two confidential informants (one called “reliable” with no factual basis shown; another reported seeing an “8 ball” and cash within the "last 30 days") plus corroborating law‑enforcement details (past search of a different address, Robinson's criminal history, utility records, parked vehicle observations).
- Robinson moved to suppress, arguing the informant statements lacked basis for reliability, temporal specificity, and personal-observation indicia, and thus the affidavit failed to establish probable cause.
- Trial court granted suppression, concluding the affidavit did not show a fair probability contraband was in the Porter Street home at the time of the warrant and that the affidavit displayed systemic negligence; it excluded the informants’ statements and found remaining facts insufficient.
- State appealed interlocutorily, conceding probable-cause weaknesses but arguing the search falls within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
- Court of Appeals agreed the affidavit lacked probable cause but held the officers reasonably relied in good faith on the warrant and reversed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit supplied a substantial basis for probable cause to search 518 Porter St. | Affidavit (informants + police corroboration) provided enough under Gates/totality of circumstances. | Informant statements were conclusory or stale, lacked basis of knowledge and reliability; remaining facts were as consistent with innocence as guilt. | Affidavit did not establish probable cause; informant statements were inadequate and stale; remaining facts insufficient. |
| Whether the good‑faith exception (Leon) applies to admit evidence seized under the invalid warrant | Officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant; no evidence of intentional falsehoods, judicial abandonment, or systemic negligence. | Affidavit was so deficient that reliance was unreasonable; suppression necessary to deter sloppy affidavit drafting. | Good-faith exception applies: suppression reversed. Affiant's mistakes were not shown to be reckless, intentional, or part of systemic negligence; a reasonably trained officer could rely on the warrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause assessed under totality of the circumstances; informant veracity/basis inform analysis)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on warrant)
- State v. Neher, 213 S.W.3d 44 (Mo. banc 2007) (informant personal observation and corroboration can supply substantial basis for credibility)
- State v. Wilbers, 347 S.W.3d 552 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (limits to deference; warrants must provide subpoena magistrate a substantial basis)
- State v. Laws, 801 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. banc 1990) (informant's basis of knowledge plus corroboration suffices to credit hearsay)