THOMAS, Judge.
I.
Ralph L. Miller appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. Appellant claims (1) the stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger was constitutionally impermissible; and (2) the consent of the driver of the vehicle to a search of her person and the car did not purge the taint.of the initial illegality and, therefore, evidence of the cocaine found on appellant’s person and appellant’s post-arrest statements must be suppressed.
Once again we must determine the appropriateness of police and prosecutorial behavior in light of a citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and society’s need for effective law enforcement. Our safety and freedom are at odds in the field of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution. This is a difficult line to draw, and it is not made any easier by the fact that we must again do so in the factual context of an individual who has violated the law. We reverse appellant’s conviction and order the trial court to sustain his motions to suppress because the initial police stop was illegal and the subsequent search activity was not sufficiently attenuated to purge the initial taint.
II.
FACTS
On December 27, 1991, Detective Himmel called Officer Thomas on his portable telephone in regard to narcotics being transported in the area of the Rainbow Village Trailer Court in Columbia, Missouri. Officer Thomas later relayed the information in person to Officer Robinson. Officer Robinson was told that a red Nissan Sentra, belonging to Ramona Tope, with Missouri license plate No. VJS976, would be transporting controlled substances and that the ear would be located in the vicinity of the Rainbow Village Trailer Court because appellant lived in that area. Officer Robinson, Officer Thomas, and Detective Himmel all were members of a special unit of the Columbia Police Department charged with suppression of street level drug trafficking. Because Detective Himmel did not testify at the suppression hearing, it is not known how Himmel knew or suspected the ear would be transporting narcotics.
Officer Robinson asked for and received assistance from Officer McDonald, who also was a member of the special drug unit. Officers Robinson and McDonald met in the vicinity of Rainbow Village and, just northeast of the trailer court at around 7:15 p.m., stopped a vehicle matching Himmel’s description. Tope was the driver and appellant was a passenger in the right front seat.
Officer Robinson approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, asked Tope to exit the vehicle, explained to her the reason for the stop, and, after Tope exited the vehicle, asked for her consent for a search of her person and the car. Tope asked if she would be arrested if she refused to consent and Officer Robinson answered that she would not. Contemporaneously, Officer McDonald [651]*651approached the passenger side of the vehicle and explained to appellant that he and Robinson were going to search the car for narcotics. McDonald then asked appellant for identification. Sometime during the following activity between McDonald and appellant, Robinson received consent from Tope to search the car and communicated that consent via a previously arranged for nod to McDonald.
Appellant did not respond to the initial request for identification, became very agitated, and kept asking McDonald what was going on. When appellant continued to refuse to produce identification, he was asked to step out of the car. Appellant acted as though he had not heard McDonald’s request and curiously placed his left hand in the left pocket of his jeans. His hand remained in his pocket for 15 to 20 seconds until he finally stepped out of the car. McDonald then noticed that appellant slipped his hand out of his pocket in an attempt to keep McDonald from seeing what was in his hand. McDonald saw a small yellow object partially concealed in appellant’s fist. Appellant initially said that he had nothing in his hand and then, after being told by McDonald not to throw it on the ground, placed the object in his left coat pocket. McDonald reached into the pocket and retrieved a small yellow bowl containing cocaine residue.
Appellant was arrested. While on the way to the police station, he denied that the container contained cocaine, but later said, “Well, what if it is coke? I thought you had to have a lot more than that to get in trouble.” Appellant then asked about the source of the police’s information regarding the drugs. McDonald answered that he did not know who provided the information. Appellant then volunteered, “I know who it was, an old girlfriend. She’s jealous, she said she would get me busted- She’s a whore. She works in a massage parlor as a prostitute, she’s just jealous.”
Appellant filed dual motions to suppress the admission of both the post-arrest statements and the evidence of the cocaine found on his person. At the suppression hearing, the State only offered testimony from Officers Robinson and McDonald. Neither Officer Thomas nor Detective Himmel testified. The trial court denied appellant’s motions to suppress. At trial, the State and the defense stipulated to the admission of the testimony of the two officers subject to appellant’s objection that the search and seizure were illegal. Appellant was convicted, the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals, Western District, and this Court accepted transfer.
This Court is to affirm the trial court’s decision if the evidence is sufficient to sustain its finding. State v. Burkhardt, 795 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. banc 1990). Likewise, this Court will defer to the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. State v. Villa-Perez, 835 S.W.2d 897, 902 (Mo. banc 1992). We find the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motions to suppress and, therefore, we reverse and remand.
III.
THE VALIDITY OF THE STOP
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution preserves the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a search or seizure is allowed only if the police have probable cause to believe the person has committed or is committing a crime. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). The Fourth Amendment allows, however, a so-called Terry stop, which is a minimally intrusive form of seizure or “semi-arrest” that is lawful if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that those stopped are engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).1 Police are allowed to conduct Terry stops of moving vehicles upon a reasonable suspicion that the occupants are involved in criminal activity. United States [652]*652v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 882, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2580, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).2 The permissible scope of a Terry automobile stop includes a “search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden_” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3480, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983).
When a law enforcement officer effectuates a Terry stop, he need not have personally observed facts amounting to reasonable suspicion provided he acted on information provided by another officer who is shown to have had reasonable suspicion to make the stop. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). In Hensley, the Supreme Court created a three-part test that requires the following: (1) that the communication objectively supported the action taken by the officer; (2) that the communication was issued on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle had been involved in a crime; and (3) that the stop that in fact occurred was no more intrusive than would have been permitted the officer that originally communicated the information. Id. at 232, 233, 105 S.Ct. at 682, 682.
In State v. Franklin, 841 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. banc 1992), this Court had occasion to apply the Hensley test in a factually similar case.3 In Franklin, a Kansas City police officer received a radio dispatch stating that an armed party was occupying a black 1984 Pontiac Fiero in the area of 4200 East 60th Terrace. The officer saw the black Fiero being driven westbound on 61st Street and pulled the car over. The officer ordered the driver out of the vehicle, handcuffed him, patted him down, and, finding no weapon, felt under the seats of the vehicle and checked the console for a weapon. Still unable to unearth a weapon, the officer asked the driver for his driver’s license. When the driver was unable to produce the license, the officer placed the driver under custodial arrest and searched him. The search produced a marijuana cigarette, or “joint,” and the officer eventually found two more “joints” and over $37,000 in cash in a brown paper sack upon a more complete search of the car.
In Franklin, this Court found it necessary to apply only the second prong of the Hensley analysis because there was no evidence that the dispatch was issued on the basis of a reasonable suspicion.
In addressing the second Hensley requirement, it becomes clear that the state failed to meet its burden. At a suppression hearing the state bears both the burden of producing evidence and the risk of nonpersuasion to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion to suppress should be overruled. § 542.296.6, RSMo 1986; State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Mo. banc 1990). The record contains no evidence of a dispatch issued on the basis of reasonable suspicion, and the detaining officer did not personally observe, independent of the dispatch, any behavior that would justify the stop. The dispatcher was not called to testify at the suppression hearing. The record is silent as to the source of the information that lead to the police dispatch. Without that information the court cannot determine whether the dispatch was based upon reasonable suspicion.
Id. at 644. We find Franklin controlling. Because we cannot simply imbue Himmel’s communication with reliability, we must look beyond the communication itself to justify the stop. To determine if reasonable suspicion existed, we must apply one of three standards:
[653]*653If a dispatch is based upon information provided by another police officer, the court looks to whether the collective information known to all officers involved in the stop amounted to reasonable suspicion. If the dispatch is based upon information obtained from an identified informant, courts examine whether the informant was known to the police to be reliable. If the information was obtained from an anonymous informant, the question is whether the police corroborated the details of the tip before making the stop. [Citations omitted.]
Franklin, at 644, n. 6.
The State produced no evidence of the origin of the tip other than appellant’s post-arrest statements. Nonetheless, the State argues that because of appellant’s post-arrest statements regarding his belief that his ex-girlfriend had provided the tip, the Court should apply the standard of a known and rehable informant. This standard cannot apply in this case because, as we determine in part IV.B. of this opinion, appellant’s statements were obtained as a result of the stop that would otherwise be held illegal. It is a well-worn principle of law that the successes of a search cannot be used to justify its legality. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595, 68 S.Ct. 222, 228, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948);4 State v. Wing, 455 S.W.2d 457, 460 (Mo.1970). By the same token, a statement obtained as the result of an illegal stop cannot be used to justify the legality of the stop.
Judge Holstein’s dissent suggests that the information received from Officer Himmel should be afforded the same reliability as should be afforded a tip from an identified informant. Since such information would be sufficient if it was shown to be from a source known to the police to be rehable (and certainly Officer Himmel should qualify as such), this stop should be viewed as proper. The fallacy in this reasoning is fundamental. It ignores the State’s burden of proof to go forward with the evidence to prove the basis of the original officer’s reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle were involved in criminal activity. § 54-2.296.6, RSMol986. When such information originates with law enforcement personnel and the State relies on that information to justify the stop, the State must prove the facts giving rise to the original suspicion. The requirements of reasonable suspicion and probable cause would be rendered meaningless if police could simply filter a “hunch” through a radio dispatch or cellular phone and have it come out rehable on the other end.
Therefore, the stop will be held illegal unless the collective information known by the officers involved in the stop, Robinson and McDonald, amounted to reasonable suspicion. Franklin, 841 S.W.2d at 644, n. 6. This can be accomplished, however, from the collective information known by the officers involved in the stop given the totality of the circumstances, and reasonable suspicion can be established if Officers Robinson and McDonald independently observed sufficient corroborating information from the prior police communication. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).
In White, the Montgomery police department received an anonymous tip that Vanessa White would be leaving a specific apartment building at a particular time in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right taillight lens broken, that she would travel directly to a motel located about four miles from the apartment building, and that she would be carrying about an ounce of cocaine inside a brown attache case. The police drove to the apartment budding and verified that a woman left within the time frame presumably given in the tip, drove off in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right taillight lens broken, and drove the most direct route to the motel named in the tip. Although the woman did not have a brown attache case and the Court noted that the case was a close call, the Court held that the police had sufficiently corroborated the information from the tip and, therefore, had rea[654]*654sonable suspicion to stop her vehicle. The Court was not impressed by the information that the car was in front of the apartment building as “[a]nyone could have ‘predicted’ that fact because it was a condition presumably existing at the time of the call. What was important was the caller’s ability to predict respondent’s future behavior because it demonstrated inside information—a special familiarity with respondent’s affairs.” Id. at 332, 110 S.Ct. at 2417.
In White, the detailed information given and the officer’s corroboration of the events allowed the officer to come to the frame of mind that the tip was more than a prank; the tipster had inside information that predicted future behavior. This alone increases the likelihood that the vehicle would be carrying what the tipster said it would such that a Terry stop is justified. It is essential, however, that the tip include detailed information that demonstrates a special'familiarity with the affairs of the object of the tip.
The information in both this ease and the Franklin case failed to demonstrate a special familiarity with the object’s affairs. In both cases, the information merely accurately described a vehicle that might be located in a particular area. In neither case did the information identify who would be in the vehicle, allow for corroboration of a travel route, or give an exact location for the vehicle. The corroboration of a police communication that predicted that a car might, at some undetermined time, be somewhere around appellant’s place of residence does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion under the standard set in White. The stop was, therefore, illegal.
It is appropriate to point out that although throughout this opinion we refer to the stop as being illegal, this case really involves the prosecution’s failure to prove the legality of the stop as opposed to an affirmative showing of an illegal stop. However, this is how it should be because a Terry stop is an extraordinary occurrence which is only justified when the State carries the burden of proving that justification.
IV.
THE ATTENUATION DOCTRINE
The State argues that although the initial stop may have been illegal, the illegality became irrelevant when Ramona Tope consented to a search of the car and the cocaine was thereafter found in plain view during the consent search.
Generally, evidence discovered and later found to be derivative of a Fourth Amendment violation must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341, 60 S.Ct. 266, 267, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939). However, there is no steadfast rule that evidence discovered after a Fourth Amendment violation must be excluded.5 Instead, “[i]n determining whether the exclusionary rule should apply to render evidence inadmissible as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree,’ the question is Svhether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which ... objection is made has been come at by exploitation of the illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. banc 1987) (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)).
A.
The Consent
The State relies on State v. Love, 831 S.W.2d 631 (Mo.App.W.D.1992), for the proposition that Tope’s voluntary consent necessarily dissipates the taint of the illegal stop. In Love, a police officer pulled over the defendant’s vehicle after hearing the tires [655]*655squeal, thinking that the defendant had run a stop sign, and suspecting that the car was stolen. The officer ordered the defendant out of the vehicle, placed him in a “spread eagle” position, and patted him down. After noticing that defendant was trembling, the officer handcuffed defendant and, with the aid of a flashlight, saw a portable telephone and brown plastic bag by the front seat. The officer then asked the defendant to sign a consent-to-seareh form. By this time, another officer had arrived at the scene, and both officers witnessed the defendant sign the consent form. Crack cocaine was found in the vehicle. The Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. The court held that “[s]ince we find sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that defendant’s consent to search was voluntary, we need not reach the issue of probable cause for his stop and his arrest.” Id. at 633.
Of course, the Love case is different from the present case. In Love, the officer did personally observe the behavior that lead to the stop. The defendant had squealed his tires and the officer believed that he had run a stop sign. To this extent, the Love case is distinguishable. To the extent, however, that the Love decision stands for the proposition that a voluntary consent obviates the need to analyze the legality of the initial stop and necessarily dissipates the taint of a possible Fourth Amendment violation, it is overruled.
The voluntariness of a consent is important, but it is merely a threshold requirement for the attenuation doctrine. See United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196, 1210, 1211 (5th Cir.1985); See also Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (voluntariness of confession only threshold requirement for Fourth Amendment analysis). The government must meet the dual requirement of voluntariness and sufficient independence from the prior illegality to purge the taint of that illegality. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Brown v. Illinois, supra; see also United States v. Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir.1994).6
Because we find that the taint of the illegal stop had not been purged by Tope’s consent, we can assume for the purpose of our analysis, without deciding as such, that the consent was voluntary.7
In Brown v. Illinois, the Supreme Court outlined three factors that should be considered in determining whether a confession retains the taint of a prior illegal seizure: (1) the temporal proximity of the illegality and the confession; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. 422 U.S. at 603-04, 95 S.Ct. at 2261-62. These factors should also be applied when determining whether to suppress evidence obtained through a voluntary consent to search given after an illegal stop or arrest. See United States v. Tovar, 687 F.2d 1210, 1215 (8th Cir.1982).
The first two factors weigh heavily against a finding of attenuation. There was simply no significant temporal distance between the illegal stop and Tope’s consent. The officers immediately told both Tope and appellant that they were searching for narcotics and only moments, or at most minutes, separated [656]*656Tope’s consent to search and the illegal stop.8 See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. at 507-508, 103 S.Ct. at 1329 (consent tainted when obtained minutes after illegal detention); Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d at 1055 (consent tainted when only minutes at the most separated the illegal search and consent); United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 883 (10th Cir.1994) (consent tainted when it took place only moments after illegal search); United States v. Campbell, 920 F.2d 793, 798 (11th Cir.1991) (consent tainted when it was given over an hour after an illegal arrest); United States v. George, 883 F.2d 1407, 1416 (9th Cir.1989) (consent tainted when obtained no more than an hour following illegal arrest); United States v. Maez, 872 F.2d 1444, 1447 (10th Cir.1989) (taint of illegal arrest not purged where consent form signed thirty minutes after illegal arrest); contra United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir.1994) (taint purged when only minutes separated consent and illegal detention following legal stop and there were no intervening circumstances).
Also, there were no intervening circumstances as Officer Robinson immediately asked Ramona Tope to step out of the car and give her consent for a search of her person and car. The fact that she was told that she would not be arrested for refusing to consent is not an intervening circumstance sufficient to break the causal chain of events following the illegal stop.9 This is simply a classic case of the police obtaining the evidence by exploitation of the initial illegality rather than by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.
And, while we find no police misconduct such that the third factor could weigh in favor of appellant,10 the absence of purposeful and flagrant misconduct cannot alone dissipate the taint in the complete absence of temporal distance and intervening circumstances.
The final portion of the State’s argument regarding the suppression of the cocaine involves the plain view doctrine because the bowl containing the cocaine was seized in plain view after the officers received consent to search the car, rather than as a result of the consent search itself. Because we have held that the consent did not render the initial illegality irrelevant and did not dissipate the taint of the initial illegality, the plain view doctrine does not apply in this case. The plain view doctrine only applies where the officer is lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, the officer has a lawful right of access to the object itself, and the incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent to the seizing officer. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2307-08, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). As we have held, Officer McDonald was not lawfully located in a place where he could plainly see the container. The plain view doctrine is, therefore, inapplicable to the case and appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine should have been sustained.
B.
Appellant’s Post-Arrest Statements
The analysis concerning appellant’s post-arrest statements about the cocaine and his ex-girlfriend giving the tip is largely the same as with the consent search. Although the statements were made after the consent, they were still made within minutes of the illegal stop and this factor still weighs against a finding of attenuation. Likewise, there are no intervening circumstances that could weigh in favor of attenuation. The fact that appellant was given his Miranda warn-[657]*657mgs is a relevant factor, but it does not, as an intervening circumstance, create a sufficient filter between the illegal stop and the statements. See Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 691, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667, 73 L.Ed.2d 814 (1982). In Taylor, the defendant was arrested without probable cause and eventually confessed six hours after his arrest. The defendant was given Miranda warnings three times and was allowed to visit with his girlfriend and a male companion before confessing. Given this factual situation, the Supreme Court held that the confession was not attenuated from the initial illegal arrest. The Court noted that “[i]f Miranda warnings were viewed as a talisman that cured all Fourth Amendment violations, then the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizures would be reduced to a mere ‘form of words.’ ” Id. 457 U.S. at 690, 102 S.Ct. at 2666 (citations omitted).
Again, although we find no misconduct on the part of the police in this ease, this factor does not overwhelm the lack of temporal distance and intervening circumstances. The statements were obtained as a direct result of the initial illegal stop and appellant’s motion to suppress his post-arrest statements should have been sustained.
V.
CONCLUSION
This is a close case, but several near-miss arguments by the State do not add up to a hit. There is no question that the State may have avoided the suppression of evidence by simply calling Detective Himmel to testify at the suppression hearing. And there is a natural temptation to seek to avoid deciding this case on what may appear to be a technical slip-up by the prosecution. However, the prosecution’s burden of proof at a suppression hearing is not a technicality; it plays a powerful and integral role in the effort to ensure the effectiveness of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The protection of the citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights supersedes any benefit derived from bending the law to secure a single conviction.
We believe this result could have been avoided and need never be repeated so long as the prosecution meets its burden of proof at the suppression hearing. As this standard protects us all without limiting appropriate police investigatory work, it “gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 660, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1694, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).
The incriminating evidence was obtained pursuant to an illegal stop, and neither the consent to search given by Ramona Tope nor appellant’s post-arrest statements were sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegality. The trial court should have sustained appellant’s motions to suppress. Therefore, the conviction is reversed, and the ease is remanded to the trial court for disposition consistent with this opinion.
COVINGTON, C.J., and PRICE and LIMBAUGH, JJ., concur.
HOLSTEIN, J., dissents in separate opinion filed.
ROBERTSON, J., dissents in separate opinion filed and concurs in opinion of HOLSTEIN, J.
BENTON, J., concurs in opinions of HOLSTEIN and ROBERTSON, JJ.