IN THE ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI
IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR 4103 )
OLIVE STREET, SAINT LOUIS, )
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Cause No.:
) Division No.:
OLADIMEJI JACOBS ALADE, and )
TAIWO ALADE, )
MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT AND SUPRESS EVIDENCE, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
COME NOW Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, and for their Motion to
Quash Search Warrant and Suppress Evidence, or in the alternative, for Return of Seized
Property pursuant to RSMo § 542.296 and Supreme Court Rule 34.01, state to the Court as
1. On January 25, 2012, Defendant Oladimeji Jacobs Alade filed a civil lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of Saint Louis City against several individuals and entities, which, inter alia,
alleges assault and battery against security officers and/or police officers.
2. The case is styled Alade v. Barnes Jewish, et al.; Saint Louis City Cause No.: 1222-
3. On January 30, at approximately 11:40am, upon the request of several police officers
who Defendants believe were involved in the facts giving rise to the civil suit, Judge Paula
Bryant issued a search warrant (“Warrant”) for Defendants’ residence at 4103 Olive Street, Saint
Louis, Missouri 63108 to investigate purported Possession of Child Pornography.
4. On February 2, Police officers seized essentially all of Defendants’ computers, routers,
cameras, phones, and technical equipment (“property”) pursuant to the Warrant.
5. A true and correct copy of the Warrant and property receipt is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
6. There is a “pending criminal proceeding” against Defendants under the meaning of
RSMo § 542.296.1.
7. The burden of going forward with the evidence and the risk of non-persuasion is on the
State to show that this Motion to Suppress should not be granted. See RSMo § 542.296.7.
8. No probable cause statement is attached to the warrant. Therefore, the Warrant and
subsequent search and seizure were illegal, unconstitutional and unreasonable in that the Warrant
was issued without probable cause and was not supported by affidavits or written oath setting
forth facts constituting or establishing probable cause.
9. Furthermore, under RSMo § 542.276.10(5), a search warrant is invalid if it fails to
identify the place or things to be searched without sufficient particularity. The purpose of the
particularity requirement is to avoid the general exploration of an individual’s belongings. See
State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 814 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989).
10. The search was general in nature and the police officers conducted a general exploration
of Defendants’ belongings, exceeded the authority of the Warrant, violated the particularity
requirement of RSMo § 542.276.10(5), and items were seized that were not authorized by the
11. The search and seizure were not made with a contemporaneous lawful arrest. Further, no
consent or exigent circumstances justified the search and seizure.
12. The State has, moreover, retained Defendants’ property for an unreasonable amount of
time under § 15 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. The property seized by the State is vital to Defendants’ livelihood and its continued
retention is unreasonable.
13. Given that it is incumbent upon this Court to sustain this Motion to Suppress, this Court
will then be required to order the return of the property to Defendants. See RSMo § 542.296.7.
14. Pleading in the alternative, pursuant to RSMo § 542.301, the property seized by the State
is not subject to forfeiture.
15. RSMo §§ 542.301.1(1)(a)-(b) permits a person to file a civil motion asking the Court to
declare the property not subject to forfeiture and for return of seized property.
15. Defendants’ claim for the return of property is timely under RSMo § 542.301.1(1)(a).
16. It would, consequently, be appropriate for this Court to hold a hearing on this Motion and
allow all persons interested in the property to attend.
17. The State no longer has a need for the property because it has had ample opportunity to
inspect the property in the context of a criminal investigation.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for this Court’s Order sustaining its Motion to Quash
Search Warrant and Suppress, or in the alternative, for Return of the Seized Property; that the
search warrant be quashed; that the evidence of the search and the items so seized and all fruits
thereof be suppressed; that all of Defendants’ property be returned; and for any other further or
additional relief that this Court deems just and proper.
THE ELSTER LAW OFFICE, LLC
Henry P. Elster, #62875
7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102
Saint Louis, Missouri 63117
(Telephone) (314) 283-8930
(Facsimile) (314) 645-7901
Attorney for Defendants