Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

April 8, 2015

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COURTNEY K. THOMPSON, Defendant-Respondent

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY. Honorable Daniel W. Imhof, Associate Circuit Judge.

FOR APPELLANT: J. DANIEL PATTERSON, Springfield, MO.

FOR RESPONDENT: JAMES SCHUMACHER, Springfield, MO.

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J. -- CONCURS. DON E. BURRELL, J. -- CONCURS.

OPINION

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, P.J.

Page 834

In this case, the State appeals from a docket entry which the parties interpret as an order granting a motion to suppress evidence. However, the docket entry is so vague that it does not, in fact, have the substantive effect of suppressing evidence. Thus, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 28, 2013, at about 2:30 in the morning, Courtney K. Thompson (" Defendant" ) was operating a passenger vehicle on Kansas Expressway in Springfield, Missouri. Officer Andrew Webb (" Officer Webb" ) stopped Defendant's vehicle, and ultimately Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated and failure to drive on the right half of the roadway. See § § 304.015, 577.010, RSMo Cum. Supp. (2014).

Defendant filed a motion to suppress all the evidence obtained after the traffic stop, arguing " [t]he initial stop was made without probable cause, and without legal justification." At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the evidence consisted of Officer Webb's testimony and the video recording from the dash cam from Officer Webb's patrol car. Officer Webb testified that when he first observed Defendant's vehicle the tires of the car had crossed into the other lane of travel. The video did not show the tires crossing into the other lane of travel. The parties vigorously disputed whether the evidence supported the conclusion that Defendant's vehicle entered the other lane of travel so as to provide justification for the traffic stop.

The trial judge took the matter under advisement and later made a docket entry regarding the motion to suppress. That docket entry stated:

After reviewing the video, the court is unable to tell if [Defendant's] tires cross over into the inside lane of traffic, but that if they did -- and the court does find the deputy credible at least in his belief

Page 835

that this happened -- the movement of the vehicle was minor enough that the court believes suppressing the evidence for inadequate probable cause is consistent [with] the cases supplied by defense counsel -- in evaluating whether [Defendant's] driving was " erratic", [sic] the court ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.