State v. Alexander, 27400.

• Citation: 56 P.3d 780,138 Idaho 18
• Decision Date: 09 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 27400.,27400.
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dane K. ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

56 P.3d 780

138 Idaho 18

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dane K. ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 27400.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

October 9, 2002.

John M. Adams, Kootenai County Chief Public Defender; J. Bradford Chapman, Deputy Public Defender, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant. J. Bradford Chapman argued.

Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Karen A. Hudelson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Karen A. Hudelson argued.

PERRY, Chief Judge.

Dane K. Alexander appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence for attempted trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine by manufacturing. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On October 2, 2000, an officer of the Kootenai County Sheriff's department applied for a warrant to search the buildings and vehicles located on a five-acre parcel of property in Rathdrum. The property included a mobile home being used as a residence by Alexander and his girlfriend, as well as a shed, a camp trailer, a Volkswagon, and several abandoned vehicles. The officer believed a search of the property would yield evidence relating to the manufacturing, possession, and sale of controlled substances.

To obtain the search warrant, the officer provided to the magistrate an oral affidavit to show probable cause. The officer testified as to the nature and sources of the information upon which he relied. These sources included an anonymous caller, an identified neighbor, the officer's own surveillance, and the owner of the property. Based on the officer's testimony, the magistrate found probable cause and issued a search warrant for the buildings and vehicles on the property.

The next morning, law enforcement officers executed the warrant. Officers searched the mobile home, the shed, and the camp trailer, where they seized illegal drugs and paraphernalia used to manufacture and ingest illegal drugs. In the mobile home, officers also found and detained Alexander, who gave statements concerning the illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia found on the property. That same day, Alexander was arrested and taken into custody.

The state initially charged Alexander with trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine by manufacturing, manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, and manufacture of a controlled substance where a child is present. Alexander filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during execution of the warrant, contending in part that it was issued without probable cause. After briefing and a hearing, the district court granted the motion to suppress with respect to the evidence found in the mobile home and camp trailer, but denied the motion with respect to the evidence found in the shed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Alexander pled guilty to attempted trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine by manufacturing, I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(3), and reserved the right to appeal the district court's partial denial of his motion to suppress.¹ The other charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Alexander to a unified term of five years, with two years fixed. The district court also imposed the statutory minimum fine of $10,000.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Alexander argues that the district court erred when it determined that the search warrant of the shed was properly issued. Alexander contends that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. He also argues that the mandatory fine serves no penological purpose and constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of the separation of powers doctrine and the prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment.

A. Search Warrant

Alexander argues that the search warrant was not valid and that the evidence obtained from the shed pursuant to the warrant should have been suppressed. In support of this argument, Alexander asserts that the warrant was issued without probable cause because the oral affidavit failed to establish the reliability of the informants and contained stale information.

The standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated. When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court's findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found. State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct.App.1996). Alexander does not dispute the district court's factual findings. Instead, Alexander contends that those facts failed to establish probable cause.

When probable cause to issue a search warrant is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court's function is to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1983); State v. Josephson, 123 Idaho 790, 792, 852 P.2d 1387, 1389 (1993); State v. Lang, 105 Idaho 683, 684, 672 P.2d 561, 562 (1983). In this evaluation, great deference is paid to the magistrate's determination. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331, 76 L.Ed.2d at 546; State v. Wilson, 130 Idaho 213, 215, 938 P.2d 1251, 1253 (Ct.App.1997). The test for reviewing the magistrate's action is whether he or she abused his or her discretion in finding that probable cause existed. State v. Holman, 109 Idaho 382, 387, 707 P.2d 493, 498 (Ct.App.1985). When a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the search was invalid. State v. Kelly, 106 Idaho 268, 275, 678 P.2d 60, 67 (Ct.App.1984).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article I, Section 17, of the Idaho Constitution is virtually identical to the Fourth Amendment, except that "oath or affirmation" is termed "affidavit." In order for a search warrant to be valid, it must be supported by probable cause to believe that evidence or fruits of a crime may be found in a particular place. Josephson, 123 Idaho at 792-93, 852 P.2d at 1389-90. In this case, a warrant was issued based upon the magistrate's finding of probable cause pursuant to an oral affidavit.

Alexander argues that the warrant lacked probable cause because the oral affidavit failed to establish the veracity and basis of knowledge of the anonymous informant under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). However, this Court's analysis of probable cause is governed by the United States Supreme Court decision in Gates, which abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238,103 S.Ct. at 2332,76 L.Ed.2d at 548; see also Lang, 105 Idaho at 684,672 P.2d at 562; State v. McAndrew, 118 Idaho 132, 134, 795 P.2d 26, 28 (Ct.App.1990). When determining whether probable cause exists:

The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d at 548; see also Wilson, 130 Idaho at 215, 938 P.2d at 1253. The Gates Court further stated that, while veracity and basis of knowledge of an informant are highly relevant in determining the value of an informant's report, they are best viewed as "issues that may usefully illuminate the commonsense, practical question whether there is `probable cause' to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place." Gates, 462 U.S. at 230, 103 S.Ct. at 2328, 76 L.Ed.2d at 543. This Court has similarly stated that the two prongs are but factors to be considered with the whole affidavit in determining whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause. See State v. Wengren, 126 Idaho 662, 667, 889 P.2d 96, 101 (Ct.App.1995).

On appeal, Alexander acknowledges that the two-prong test has been replaced with a "totality of the circumstances" test. Alexander nevertheless places great emphasis on these two prongs, as he challenges the veracity and basis of knowledge of each informant. Additionally, Alexander takes each piece of information provided in the oral affidavit and attacks it individually, offering an innocent explanation.

In the probable cause hearing before the magistrate in this case, the officer described his law enforcement training and experience related to drugs and methamphetamine laboratories and used four sources to demonstrate that under the totality of the circumstances, probable cause existed to search the Alexander property. According to the officer, a concerned citizen who wished to remain anonymous telephoned the officer on September 23, 2000, about an active methamphetamine laboratory. The caller stated that he had personally been to the property two to three times per week for the past year and a half. He reported that his wife was addicted to methamphetamine and that he had gone there with his wife in order to purchase the drug. While there, he had seen methamphetamine being produced inside the shed. The officer testified that the caller described in detail the manufacturing process used, but did not provide those details to the magistrate. The caller also described the property, including the exterior of the mobile home and shed, and other items on the property. The caller gave the names of the couple living there; the name, gender, and age of one of the three children...