Factual and Procedural Background We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. State v. Williams , 485 S.W.3d 797, 800 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). The State charged West with one count of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree in violation of section 565.024.
While the State has the burden of showing that a motion to suppress should be overruled, the proponent of a motion to suppress, in this case Nelson, "has the initial burden of proving that he is a person who is 'aggrieved' by an unlawful search and seizure." State v. West, 548 S.W.3d 406, 413 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing State v. Williams, 485 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016)). "The language . . . conferring standing to file a motion to suppress upon an 'aggrieved' person, is nothing more than codification of the standing requirements under the Fourth Amendment as set forth by the United States Supreme Court."
Id. State v. Williams , 485 S.W.3d 797, 800-01 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). The Relevant Evidence
Beyond "the initial burden of proving that he is a person who is ‘aggrieved’ by an unlawful search and seizure," a defendant does not have to produce any evidence, because the State "has the ultimate burden." State v. Williams , 485 S.W.3d 797, 800-01 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citing State v. Ramires , 152 S.W.3d 385, 395 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)). With respect to a motion to suppress, the State bears both the burden of producing evidence and persuading the trial court by a preponderance of the evidence to overrule the motion to suppress.
Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735, 739, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (quoting U.S. CONST. amend. IV). Rights under the Fourth Amendment are " ‘personal rights which ... may not be vicariously asserted.’ " State v. Williams , 485 S.W.3d 797, 800 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128, 133-34, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) ). "A defendant seeking to suppress evidence based on an alleged unreasonable search must demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched." Shumate v. State , 515 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). "This standard involves a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the defendant by his conduct has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched, id. ; and (2) "that expectation of privacy must be objectively ‘reasonable’ or ‘legitimate[.]
"Legitimation of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society." State v. Williams , 485 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016), citingRakas, 439 U.S. at 143 n.12, 99 S.Ct. 421. Appellant’s claim of a reasonable, business-related expectation of privacy in the trailer is wholly unsupported by the evidence.
"Legitimation of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society." State v. Williams, 485 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016), citing Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 n.12. Appellant's claim of a reasonable, business-related expectation of privacy in the trailer is wholly unsupported by the evidence.