On remand from State v. Robinson, 454 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. App. 2015), the only evidence in the record showed that the officer who prepared the affidavit was systemically negligent in the preparation of search warrant affidavits, and that precludes application of the good faith exception. State v. Robinson, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 483 (May 23, 2017):
The State, however, offered no evidence in opposition to Robinson’s second motion to suppress. Robinson supported his second motion to suppress with Arnsperger’s admissions in his deposition testimony that he was aware of the multiple deficiencies in the Robinson affidavit but submitted the affidavit anyway. Robinson also offered the Lucas and Head affidavits, which he asserted contained similar deficiencies. Indeed, the Lucas affidavit was found to be so lacking in probable cause that it, too, resulted in the granting of a motion to suppress. The State presented no evidence showing Arnsperger’s good faith to refute Robinson’s contention of systemic negligence. The only evidence before the court that was favorable to the State was Arnsperger’s deposition testimony that his mistakes in the Robinson affidavit were merely an “oversight” and that the type of informant in the Lucas affidavit was different from the informants in the Robinson affidavit. The court was not required to accept this testimony, and we must defer to its decision not to. Stoebe, 406 S.W.3d at 514-15.
In the record before the court, one hundred percent of the search warrant affidavits prepared by Arnsperger were deficient, and by his own admissions, Arnsperger was aware of the deficiencies in the applications but failed to prepare them properly. The State did not meet its burden of production or persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, why Robinson’s motion to suppress should be overruled. Therefore, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred in granting Robinson’s second motion to suppress. The State’s point on appeal is denied.