State v. Bernth, 40611

• Decision Date: 03 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. 40611,40611
• Citation: 196 Neb. 813,246 N.W.2d 600
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Rodney BERNTH, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 600

246 N.W.2d 600

196 Neb. 813

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Rodney BERNTH, Appellant.

No. 40611.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 3, 1976.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It has long been the rule that reasonable grounds for the issuance of a search warrant to search specified premises exist if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe the property sought was on the premises described.

2. Affidavits for search warrants must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in common-sense and realistic fashion, and technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common-law pleadings have no proper place in the area.

3. Where circumstances are detailed in an affidavit for a search warrant, and where reason for crediting the source of the information is given, and where a magistrate has found probable cause, courts should not invalidate a warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical rather than in a common-sense manner.

4. Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit for a search warrant demonstrates existence of probable cause, resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in the area should be largely determined by preference to be accorded to warrants.

5. A lesser included offense is one which includes some of the elements of the crime charged without the addition of any element irrelevant to the crime charged.

6. Possession of a controlled substance is an included offense within a charge of possession with intent to distribute.

Cunningham, Blackburn, Von Seggern & Livingston, Grand Island, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Bernard L. Packett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON and BRODKEY, JJ.

NEWTON, Justice.

The defendant, on trial to the court, was convicted of possession of marijuana, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it. He was sentenced to 2 years probation and a fine of $150 on each count.

Two propositions are presented on appeal. Should evidence of the marijuana found pursuant to a search warrant be suppressed? Do the two counts contrained in the information set out two separate offenses or is one a lesser included offense?

The search warrant is challenged solely on the ground that the affidavit therefor failed to sufficiently indicate that the marijuana was kept at defendant's residence, the locale of the search. The affidavit stated that the defendant had informed a concededly reliable informant that he had 'pounds of grass for sale.' The affidavit further stated that the informant had identified defendant's place of residence and that affiant believed the controlled substance was situated there. Is this sufficient identification of the situs of the marijuana?

It has long been the rule that reasonable grounds for the issuance of a search warrant to search specified premises exist if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe the property sought was on the premises described. See, Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 45 S.Ct. 546, 69 L.Ed. 1032; United States v. Stewart, Pa., 79 F.Supp. 313; United States v. Rahn, 511 F.2d 290 (10th Cir., 1975).

In Bastida v. Henderson, 487 F.2d 860 (5th Cir., 1973), involving a search for pistols used in a robbery there was no definite information as to the situs of the pistols but the search was held to have been made on probable cause. The court stated: 'In issuing a search warrant the magistrate must exercise his own judgment as to whether the facts alleged in the affidavit constitute probable cause for issuance of the warrant, he must act on the entire picture disclosed to him, he is entitled to use his common sense, and the courts have gone so far as to say that when this is done his determination is conclusive in the absence of arbitrariness. * * *

'They feared that they had killed their victim but they had not thrown away their pistols. A very likely place to find them thereafter would either be on the persons of the assailants or about the premises where they lived. In any event, it was not unreasonable or arbitrary for the magistrate to find that there was probable cause to believe such to be the case. It necessarily follows that a statement of the informer (repeated in the affidavit) that the pistols would 'still be within the apartment on April 17' was not an indispensable prerequisite to the validity of the warrant issued in reliance upon its allegations.'

In United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732 (9th Cir., 1973) it was held: 'Although there was no direct evidence that any evidence from the burglary was inside Dinsio's residence, there was sufficient evidence from which the magistrate could use his common sense to infer that the loot and tools, if not buried, were probably in the house.'

In Agnellino v. State of New Jersey, 493 F.2d 714 (3d Cir., 1974), it was held: 'Probable cause for issuance of search warrant existed where, accepting as reliable underlying facts appearing in affidavit, a man of reasonable caution would have been warranted in believing that defendant was concealing stolen television sets, and that one of sets had previously been transferred to informant at a place within close proximity to a business establishment which was owned and operated by defendant and was of sufficient size and character to conveniently conceal televisions.' See, also United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir., 1970); United States v. Rahn, supra.

In United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684, it was held: Affidavits for search warrants must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in commonsense and realistic fashion, and technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common-law pleadings have no proper place in the area. Where circumstances are detailed in affidavit for search warrant, and where reason for crediting source of information is given, and where magistrate has found probable cause, courts should not invalidate warrant by interpreting affidavit in hypertechnical rather than in commonsense manner. Though in particular case it may not be easy to determine when affidavit for search warrant demonstrates existence of probable cause, resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in area should be largely determined by preference to be accorded to warrants.

An individual's residence is a private area inaccessible to all others. Its contents can only be determined by persons other than the occupants or invitees on the basis of observation of the inhabitants, their actions, and remarks. Seldom can an affiant seeking a search warrant state positively that a certain residence contains contraband. Such a conclusion can only be arrived at by a magistrate on consideration of known facts and common-sense probabilities. Controlled substances are of considerable value on the street, much sought after by users, and, unless kept in a safe place, subject to theft. Wide experience over the years has demonstrated that such items are usually kept in a dealer's place of residence and under constant surveillance or supervision. The defendant was obviously a dealer. He had 'pounds' of marijuana. Such a quantity would not be carried on his person or left unprotected in an automobile. Where then does logic and common sense dictate that it would be kept? There is only one answer, his residence. A magistrate is not required to ignore the lessons of experience or to disregard logic and common sense. We conclude that the affidavit for a search warrant was sufficient and the motion to suppress evidence properly overruled.

The second issue presents the question of whether 'possession' is a separate or included offense in regard to 'possession with intent to distribute.' We have held that a lesser included offense is one which includes some of the elements of the crime charged without the addition of any element irrelevant to the crime charged. See, State v. Jones, 186 Neb. 303, 183 N.W.2d 235; State v. McClarity, 180 Neb. 246, 142 N.W.2d 152.

Possession and possession for sale or distribution of controlled substances are generally treated as one offense. In United States v. Upthegrove, 504 F.2d 682 (6th Cir., 1974), it was held that possession of a controlled substance is a lesser included...