# State v. Wiley

> Supreme Court of Missouri · April 14, 1975 · 522 S.W.2d 281

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775623

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald Lee WILEY, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** April 14, 1975
- **Citations:** 522 S.W.2d 281; 1975 Mo. LEXIS 354
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Morgan
- **Judges:** Donnelly, Holman, Henley, Finch, Morgan, Seiler, Bardgett
- **Cited by:** 138 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775623

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that to infer possession of a controlled substance where the defendant lacks exclusive possession of the premises, defendant must have knowledge of the substance and control over it
- noting the “lawfulness of the arrest without warrant, in turn must be based upon probable cause … that an offense has been or is being committed” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)

## Opinion text

MORGAN, Judge
(concurring).
In his Dissenting Opinion, Judge Seiler states that : “The United States Supreme Court has ruled invalid a search and seizure which closely resembles the facts here, but which is not discussed by the principal opinion. * * * The factual similarity between Vale [Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970)] and the case at bar leaves little room for doubt that it is controlling here.”
It is respectfully suggested that such statements are ill-founded in view of the following excerpt from the Vale case (l. c. 35, 90 S.Ct. 1972 ): “There is no suggestion that anyone consented to the search. Cf. Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 628 , 66 S.Ct. 1277, 1279 , 90 L.Ed. 1477 . The officers were not responding to an emergency. United States v. Jeffers, supra, 342 U.S. at 52, 72 S.Ct. at 95; McDonald v. United States, supra, 335 U.S. at 454, 69 S.Ct. at 192. They were not in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298-299 , 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1645-1646 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 ; Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 615 , 81 S.Ct. 776, 779 , 5 L.Ed.2d 828 ; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15 , 68 S.Ct. 367, 369 , 92 L.Ed. 436 . The goods ultimately seized were not in the process of destruction. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770-771 , 86 S. Ct. 1826, 1835-1836 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 ; United States v. Jeffers, supra; McDonald v. United States, supra, 335 U.S. at 455, 69 S.Ct. at 193. Nor were they about to be removed from the jurisdiction. Chapman v. United States, supra; Johnson v. United States, supra.”
Two factors of interest here were not present in the Vale case: (1) “The officers were not responding to an emergency.”; and, (2) “Nor were they [the drugs] about to be removed from the jurisdiction.” Both factors are present in the instant case, which should make it readily distinguishable from the Vale case.
I concur in the principal opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775623. Public record. Not legal advice.