State v. Babcock, No. 23717.

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtSabers
Citation718 N.W.2d 624,2006 SD 59
PartiesSTATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ann Paige BABCOCK aka Ann Paige Dodson, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date05 July 2006
Docket NumberNo. 23717.
718 N.W.2d 624
2006 SD 59
STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Ann Paige BABCOCK aka Ann Paige Dodson, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 23717.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs May 23, 2006.
Decided July 5, 2006.

Page 625

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 626

Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Craig M. Eichstadt, Deputy Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

Darren J. Magee, Minnehaha County Public Defender, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.

SABERS, Justice.


[¶ 1.] Ann Paige Babcock (Babcock) was indicted for possessing methamphetamine and inhabiting a place where drugs are kept. Prior to trial, she made a motion to suppress evidence, arguing: (1) law enforcement's affidavit did not provide probable cause to justify the issuance of an "all persons search warrant" and (2) there were no exigent circumstances permitting law enforcement to forgo the "knock and announce" requirement in the warrant. The circuit court denied the motion and Babcock was later convicted on both counts. Babcock appeals the denial of her motion to suppress. We affirm.

Facts

[¶ 2.] On August 24, 2004, law enforcement received the first of four anonymous "crime stoppers" calls alleging drug activity at a private residence at 1908 South Menlo Avenue in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The informant noted the following facts: the residence was owned by a woman named Lori; there was lots of shortterm traffic during all hours of the day; and two small children were being exposed to drug use and drug dealing. A few hours later, another "crime stoppers" call was received from a different informant. This caller set forth many of the same allegations as the first caller, but noted that there were "two little girls that live at the address" who are sometimes "locked out of the house for short periods of time when ... people come over."

[¶ 3.] Over the next couple of days, law enforcement received two additional calls alleging drug use at 1908 South Menlo. One of the callers stated that there were two small children being neglected because there was "no food in the house" and there were "needles lying around." Additionally, the caller stated the location of the drugs in the residence.

[¶ 4.] Law enforcement called a utility company and confirmed that a woman named Lori Aguirre (Aguirre) was receiving electrical services at 1908 South Menlo. Based on the four "crime stoppers" calls

Page 627

and confirmation a woman named Lori was living at the address, law enforcement decided to search a garbage dumpster located in an alley next to the residence.

[¶ 5.] Law enforcement found several baggies with corners cut out of them, baggie corners containing white residue, foil strips, a small amount of marijuana, and two syringes. Additionally, there was a letter from the South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS) addressed to Aguirre requesting a meeting.

[¶ 6.] The foil strips and the white powder residue on the baggie corners tested positive for methamphetamine. Law enforcement contacted a representative from DSS. The representative told law enforcement that she had received allegations of drug use at the home of Aguirre, but was unable to confirm the activity because Aguirre did not return phone calls or allow any visits with her or her two children.

[¶ 7.] Based on this information, Detective Steven Fiegen (Fiegen) submitted an affidavit in support of an all persons search warrant for Aguirre's residence. Fiegen stated that based on his experience as a narcotics officer, it was common for individuals involved in drug distribution to remove the corners of baggies in a fashion similar to those found in Aguirre's trash. According to Fiegen, it was also common for individuals involved in drug distribution to have high levels of short term traffic at their residence. He requested an "all persons" warrant for Aguirre's residence. He also requested a "no knock" provision in the warrant in order to protect the officers involved in the search and prevent the destruction of evidence.

[¶ 8.] The circuit court issued the "all persons" warrant, but denied the right to forgo the knock and announce requirement. The court permitted law enforcement to execute the warrant at anytime, day or night.

[¶ 9.] Officers from the narcotics unit of the Sioux Falls Police Department and Drug Enforcement Administration executed a search of Aguirre's residence on the afternoon of October 13, 2004. All the officers wore black shirts bearing police insignia. When they approached the back of the house, they observed a man standing in the upstairs window. The officers yelled at the man "don't move, don't move, police, search warrant." The individual looked down at the officers and stepped out of view. The officers yelled for him to return to no avail. At that point the officers decided to enter the home. Upon entering the home, officers were able to locate one person sleeping in the basement and six people in an upstairs bedroom. Among the people upstairs were Babcock and Aguirre. A search of the home and individuals yielded methamphetamine, a methamphetamine pipe, baggies with the corners cut out of them, a hand scale, one spoon, nine syringes, a zip lock baggie, and marijuana.

[¶ 10.] Babcock was indicted on one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of inhabiting a place where drugs are kept. Prior to trial she made a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that Fiegen's affidavit was insufficient to support probable cause and, alternatively, there were no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, No. 25408.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 23, 2010
    ...court's factual findings as to the existence of exigent circumstances are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Babcock, 2006 SD 59, ¶ 12, 718 N.W.2d 624, 628. However, whether the facts constitute exigent circumstances is a mixed law-fact question reviewed de novo. Id.; M......
  • Riis v. Shaver, 3:17-CV-03017-RAL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • April 28, 2020
    ...courts have upheld "all persons" warrants based on similar evidence, including the Supreme Court of South Dakota. See State v. Babcock, 718 N.W.2d 624, 629 (S.D. 2006) (holding that "substantial support" existed for an "all persons" warrant where the police found "numerous drug-related item......
  • State Of South Dakota. V. CATS, No. 25408-a-DG
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 23, 2010
    ...court's factual findings as to the existence of exigent circumstances are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Babcock, 2006 SD 59, ¶ 12, 718 NW2d 624, 628. However, whether the facts constitute exigent circumstances is a mixed law-fact question reviewed de novo. Id.; Mat......
  • State v. Wilkinson, No. 24300.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • July 25, 2007
    ...manufacturing a controlled substance and conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 16.] In State v. Babcock, 2006 SD 59, 718 N.W.2d 624 (2006), we explained the standard when reviewing the sufficiency of a search We review challenges to the sufficiency of searc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, No. 25408.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 23, 2010
    ...court's factual findings as to the existence of exigent circumstances are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Babcock, 2006 SD 59, ¶ 12, 718 N.W.2d 624, 628. However, whether the facts constitute exigent circumstances is a mixed law-fact question reviewed de novo. Id.; M......
  • Riis v. Shaver, 3:17-CV-03017-RAL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • April 28, 2020
    ...upheld "all persons" warrants based on similar evidence, including the Supreme Court of South Dakota. See State v. Babcock, 718 N.W.2d 624, 629 (S.D. 2006) (holding that "substantial support" existed for an "all persons" warrant where the police found "num......
  • State Of South Dakota. V. CATS, No. 25408-a-DG
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 23, 2010
    ...court's factual findings as to the existence of exigent circumstances are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Babcock, 2006 SD 59, ¶ 12, 718 NW2d 624, 628. However, whether the facts constitute exigent circumstances is a mixed law-fact question reviewed de novo. Id.; Mat......
  • State v. Wilkinson, No. 24300.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • July 25, 2007
    ...manufacturing a controlled substance and conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 16.] In State v. Babcock, 2006 SD 59, 718 N.W.2d 624 (2006), we explained the standard when reviewing the sufficiency of a search We review challenges to the sufficiency of searc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT