Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Kelly D. FOWLER, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-11-05
Citations: 90 S.W.3d 506
Docket Number: No. ED 81307
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Kelly D. FOWLER, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and MARY K. HOFF, J. and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 90
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Kelly D. FOWLER, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 81307.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Nov. 5, 2002.
Angel M. Woodruff, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Jackson, MO, for appellant.
Stephen C. Wilson, Wilson & Chastain, L.C., Cape Girardeau, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and MARY K. HOFF, J. and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The State of Missouri appeals from the trial court's order sustaining Kelly D. Fowler's motion to suppress evidence.
In its sole point on appeal, the State claims the trial court erred in granting Fowler's motion to suppress because exigent circumstances existed which justified the protective sweep of the residence, and therefore the plain view observations of the officers made during that protective sweep could lawfully be utilized as facts to support probable cause for issuance of the search warrant.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).