State v. Dildine

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dildine

275 S.W.3d 373, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 2009 WL 215361

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

DocketED 91430

StatusPublished

This text of 275 S.W.3d 373 (State v. Dildine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dildine, 275 S.W.3d 373, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 2009 WL 215361 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The State of Missouri (“the state”) appeals the judgment of the trial court granting William Drew Dildine’s (“defendant”) motion to suppress evidence. The state argues the court erred in granting defendant’s motion because the police officer’s observations during a valid traffic stop gave the officer probable cause to ask defendant to leave his vehicle and perform a pat-down search of defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for them information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*374 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The State of Missouri (“the state”) appeals the judgment of the trial court granting William Drew Dildine’s (“defendant”) motion to suppress evidence. The state argues the court erred in granting defendant’s motion because the police officer’s observations during a valid traffic stop gave the officer probable cause to ask defendant to leave his vehicle and perform a pat-down search of defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for them information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*374 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 S.W.3d 373, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 2009 WL 215361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dildine-moctapp-2009.