Ritacca v. Kenosha County Court
Decision Date | 29 June 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 76-276,76-276 |
Citation | 280 N.W.2d 751,91 Wis.2d 72 |
Parties | Louis Ervin RITACCA, Plaintiff in Error, v. KENOSHA COUNTY COURT, their agents, assistants, assigns and all those acting in concert therewith, Defendants in Error. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
James C. Wood, Milwaukee, submitted brief for plaintiff in error.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and Wm. L. Gansner, Asst. Atty. Gen., submitted brief for defendants in error.
Ritacca seeks review of an order quashing a writ of habeas corpus. Two questions are presented: (1) Did the affidavit on which the search warrant was based establish probable cause to believe there was marijuana on the premises to be searched? (2) Did the complaint establish probable cause to believe the defendant possessed marijuana with intent to deliver?
On March 18, 1976, the defendant was charged in a criminal complaint with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of sec. 161.41(1m) (b), Stats. 1 The complaint stated in part:
"that at approximately 8:30 P.M. on said date said defendant was present in upper rooms of a house, being the first house north of the intersection of CTH 'Q' and CTH 'H' on the west side of CTH 'H' and with the address of 10320 88th Avenue in said Township; that then and there said defendant had in his possession and under his control 2 one pound bags of a green plant like material which appeared to be marijuana; that then and there said material was seized by Det. Tenuta of the Kenosha County Sheriff's department who transferred said material to Arthur Schait, a forensic chemist employed by the City of Kenosha, who performed a preliminary chemical test on said material which indicated the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol; that in addition to said plant like material being found on said premises various other paraphernalia used in the packing and weighing of controlled substances where (sic) also found to be in the possession of said defendant."
Two days earlier, March 16, 1976, a search warrant issued for a search for marijuana in a house said to be occupied by the defendant. The warrant was based on the affidavit of Officer Stephen Lukawski which stated that on March 16, 1976, persons possessing marijuana were apprehended as they were coming out of the house and that on March 5, 1976, an informant bought some marijuana from a person who brought the marijuana out of the house. The affidavit said the informant gave the officer information which proved to be reliable on four prior occasions. Lukawski's affidavit stated that the informant gave Deputy Sheriff Allen Kehl a substance Kehl believed to be marijuana, which the informant said he obtained at the defendant's house. The authorized search produced two one-pound bags of marijuana.
On April 7, 1976, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the affidavit on which the warrant was based failed to establish probable cause that marijuana was on the premises and that the complaint failed to show probable cause that the defendant possessed the marijuana with intent to deliver. The court denied the motions and, following a preliminary examination on April 18, 1976, bound the defendant over for trial.
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency of the statements in the search warrant affidavit and the allegations in the complaint. The court quashed the writ, and the defendant seeks review by writ of error.
There are two issues: (1) Does the affidavit on which the search warrant was based state facts sufficient to establish probable cause that marijuana would be found in the house? (2) Does the complaint state facts sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant possessed marijuana with the intent to deliver?
A search warrant may issue only on a finding of probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate. State v. Benoit, 83 Wis.2d 389, 394, 265 N.W.2d 298 (1978). The quantum of evidence necessary to support a determination of probable cause for a search warrant is less than that required for conviction or for bindover following a preliminary examination. Id. On review, this court must determine whether the magistrate issuing the warrant was apprised of sufficient facts to excite an honest belief in a reasonable mind that the objects sought are linked with the commission of a crime and that they will be found in the place to be searched. Id. at 395, 265 N.W.2d 298. The warrant may be issued on the basis of hearsay, but it must be shown that the information is substantially reliable. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). The affidavit is to be read in a commonsense, not a hypertechnical, fashion. United States v. Ventresca,380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). Review of the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant is confined to the record before the magistrate, and the defendant carries the burden on review of demonstrating that the evidence before the magistrate was clearly insufficient. Bast v. State, 87 Wis.2d 689, 692, 275 N.W.2d 682 (1979).
Officer Lukawski's affidavit stated:
The defendant maintains that the affidavit is insufficient because it does not demonstrate that the informant was reliable and that the substance in question was marijuana.
A warrant based solely on hearsay information provided by an informant is valid if the affidavit on which it is based establishes: (1) the underlying circumstances which show reason to believe the informant is credible, and (2) the underlying circumstances which show that the manner in which the informant reached his conclusions were reliable. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); State v. Paszek, 50 Wis.2d 619, 627, 184 N.W.2d 836 (1971).
Here the officer stated that he believed the informant to be reliable because he made four prior "controlled purchases of controlled substances," and in each case gave the officer reliable information. The affidavit recited that the informant was not paid in money for the information. A statement that the informant has given reliable information on past occasions affords a basis from which a magistrate may conclude the informant is a credible person. McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 304, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967); Laster v. State, 60 Wis.2d 525, 534, 211 N.W.2d 13 (1973); State v. Paszek, supra, 50 Wis.2d at 630, 184 N.W.2d 836. Defendant contends the statement as to the informant's credibility was conclusory in that it speaks of the informant's prior "successful" drug purchases and information which "proved" reliable. In McCray, the officer said he had known the informant two years, that the informant had given him information about narcotics " '20 or 25 times,' " and that such information resulted in convictions. This statement, held by the Court to satisfy the first prong of the Aguilar test, discloses more instances in which the informant gave reliable information but provides only a slightly greater factual predicate than the affidavit in the instant case. We conclude the reliability of the information is not dependent upon convictions having resulted from the previously furnished information. We are not impressed by the state's argument that the informer is credible because he obtained some marijuana at the house which he later turned over to Deputy Kehl and therefore gave information against his penal interest. Cf. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971). Because the affidavit does...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Shanks, 83-901-W
... ... Allen B. SHANKS, Sheriff of Sauk County, Wisconsin, ... Respondent. * ... No. 83-901-W ... Court of Appeals ... Ritacca v. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis.2d 72, 82, 280 N.W.2d 751, 756 (1979) ... ...
-
State v. Ward, 97-2008-CR
... ... Lance R. WARD, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 97-2008-CR ... Court of Appeals of Wisconsin ... Submitted on Briefs May 11, 1998 ... See Ritacca v. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis.2d 72, 78, 280 N.W.2d 751, 754 (1979) ... ...
-
State v. DeSmidt
... ... No. 88-1356-CR ... Supreme Court of Wisconsin ... Argued Jan. 26, 1990 ... Decided May 10, 1990 ... App.1989), which affirmed the order of the circuit court for Brown county, the Honorable John P. Hoffmann, Judge, suppressing all evidence, except ... 297, 318, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2137, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972); Ritacca v. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis.2d 72, 77, 280 N.W.2d 751 (1979). Whether ... ...
-
State v. Marshall, 77-066-CR
... ... No. 77-066-CR ... Supreme Court of Wisconsin ... Argued Oct. 9, 1979 ... Decided Nov. 6, 1979 ... State v. Paszek, 50 Wis.2d 619, 184 N.W.2d 836 (1971); Ritacca v. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis.2d 72, 280 N.W.2d 751 (1979). This test ... ...
-
Motion to Suppress - Staleness, Particularity; Franks Motion
...and detached magistrate. United States vs. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 318 (1972); Ritacca vs. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis. 2d 72, 77 (1979). The existence of probable cause is determined by analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238......
-
Search and seizure of electronic devices
...and detached magistrate. United States vs. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297, 318 (1972); Ritacca vs. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis. 2d 72, 77 (1979). The existence of probable cause is determined by analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 2......
-
Motion to Suppress - Staleness, Particularity; Franks Motion
...and detached magistrate. United States vs. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 318 (1972); Ritacca vs. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis. 2d 72, 77 (1979). The existence of probable cause is determined by analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238......
-
Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices
...and detached magistrate. United States vs. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297, 318 (1972); Ritacca vs. Kenosha County Court, 91 Wis. 2d 72, 77 (1979). The existence of probable cause is determined by analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 2......