State v. Hampton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hampton

205 S.W.3d 891, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1734, 2006 WL 3372868

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 2006·No. No. WD 66121·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Douglas W. Hampton, Jr., was convicted of attempted manufacture of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211, RSMo.2000, and illegal use of drug paraphernalia, in violation of section 195.283, RSMo.2000. Hampton’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress in that automobile searches should be limited to cases where it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime arrested for might be found in the vehicle.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Douglas W. Hampton, Jr., was convicted of attempted manufacture of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211, RSMo.2000, and illegal use of drug paraphernalia, in violation of section 195.283, RSMo.2000. Hampton’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress in that automobile searches should be limited to cases where it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime arrested for might be found in the vehicle.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Hampton, 205 S.W.3d 891, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1734, 2006 WL 3372868 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

205 S.W.3d 891 (State v. Hampton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.