State of Missouri v. Joseph Fountain Perry
WD78653
| Mo. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Officer Huber, who suspected Perry of selling meth, followed Perry’s truck for 2–4 minutes after seeing him leave his driveway and checked dispatch for his driving status based on another officer’s (Maples) earlier report that Perry might be suspended.
- Perry parked in his fiancée’s driveway; Huber stopped nearby, exited her patrol car, told Perry she believed his license was suspended, and asked to see his license; Perry produced it and she retained it while attempting to radio dispatch.
- While Huber tried to confirm the license, Perry turned away, put a hand in his pocket holding a small baggie, ignored Huber’s repeated requests to approach, moved a bicycle out of his truck, and then ran; Huber chased him, he jumped a chain-link fence, and later surrendered to the sheriff.
- Officers recovered a plastic bag from the hollow fence post where Perry hesitated; it contained methamphetamine, which formed the only direct evidence of possession at trial.
- Perry moved to suppress the meth as the fruit of an unlawful seizure; the trial court overruled the motion, a jury convicted Perry of possession (lesser included offense), and he was sentenced to eight years as a prior and persistent offender; the appellate court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Perry's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial contact was a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | The contact was a Terry stop (seizure) when Huber followed, stopped nearby, announced she suspected a suspended license, and retained his license; no reasonable suspicion supported it | Initially argued consensual encounter; on appeal argued it was a lawful Terry stop supported by reasonable suspicion (suspended license and possible meth distribution) | The court held the encounter was a seizure and that the State failed to prove reasonable suspicion to justify it, so the stop was unlawful |
| Whether evidence (baggie) was admissible because Perry abandoned it while fleeing | Perry: abandonment doctrine inapplicable because abandonment flowed from an unlawful seizure (thus involuntary) | State: contraband discarded while fleeing is abandoned and not protected by Fourth Amendment | Court held abandonment doctrine did not apply because the discarding resulted from an unlawful seizure; evidence should have been suppressed |
| Whether later conduct during the encounter could supply reasonable suspicion or probable cause | Perry: his actions during the unlawful Terry stop (turning away, clutching bag, running) are fruits of the unlawful seizure and cannot cure it | State: argued probable cause existed at arrest or that later conduct justified continued detention | Court ruled after-the-event justification impermissible; conduct during unlawful stop cannot supply new justification |
| Remedy: reversal or remand for resentencing based on claims of sentencing error | Perry argued suppression error and also that sentencing relied on materially false belief re: minimum sentence | State conceded sentencing range was misstated and that remand would be required if conviction stood | Because conviction was reversed for unlawful seizure, sentencing issue was moot; conviction and sentence reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (recognizes investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes seizure by show of authority from seizure by physical force; fleeing subject not seized until submission)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (objective test for seizure: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (plurality: retention of ID and indicia of authority may effect a seizure)
- Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (U.S. 1988) (police following a pedestrian does not alone constitute a seizure)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (officer may briefly stop where reasonable suspicion criminal activity may be afoot)
- State v. Grayson, 336 S.W.3d 138 (Mo. banc 2011) (Missouri discussion of seizure and reasonable-suspicion standard)
- State v. Norfolk, 966 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (State must prove origin of information from law enforcement when used to justify a stop)
- State v. Miller, 894 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. banc 1995) (fruits of an unlawful seizure are subject to suppression)
- United States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1997) (discusses seizure when officer follows and retains identification)