State v. Curran
| Decision Date | 20 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-1034,14-1034 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of West Virginia Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Michelle Curran Defendant Below, Petitioner |
Petitioner Michelle Curran, by counsel Courtney L. Ahlborn, appeals the Circuit Court of Wood County's April 28, 2014, order denying her motion to suppress. Respondent State of West Virginia ("State"), by counsel Nic Dalton, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner submitted a reply.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In January of 2014, petitioner was indicted by the Wood County Grand Jury on eight felony charges, all related to the sale of controlled substances.1 Petitioner's charges stem from an investigation undertaken by the Parkersburg Narcotics Task Force (PNTF) from August of 2012 to September of 2013. On August 26, 2012, a PNTF agent placed electronic monitoring equipment on a confidential informant to conduct a controlled buy (controlled purchase of controlled substances) inside petitioner's residence. Prior to arranging the controlled buy, the PNTF did not obtain the necessary electronic intercept warrant required by the West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, West Virginia Code §§ 62-1D-1 through -16 or 62-1F-1. The confidential informant purchased cocaine from petitioner during the August 26, 2012, controlled buy.
On August 29, 2012, the PNTF applied for an electronic intercept warrant for petitioner's residence citing the August 26, 2012, purchase from petitioner. The warrant application was granted, but no additional controlled buys were made at petitioner's residence until October of 2012. On October 2, 2012, the PNTF requested a new electronic intercept warrant for petitioner's residence. In making the application for this warrant, the PNTF referenced the August 26, 2012, controlled buy, in addition to other facts as a basis for probable cause. The warrant application was granted and controlled buys were conducted at petitioner's residence on October 2, 2012, October 3, 2012, and October 9, 2012.
On March 23, 2013, PNTF requested another electronic intercept warrant for a controlled buy at petitioner's residence. In making the application for the March 23, 2013, warrant, the PNTF again cited the August 26, 2012, controlled buy as a partial basis for probable cause. The warrant was granted, and two additional controlled buys were completed at petitioner's residence on March 25, 2013, and April 1, 2013. By April 1, 2013, the PNTF was using a new confidential informant for its investigation of petitioner and, prior to that informant entering petitioner's residence to complete the controlled buy, a PNTF officer showed that informant (identified as 13-CI-009) a photograph of petitioner from the officer's phone.
On September 24, 2012, the PNTF made another application for an electronic intercept warrant requesting to conduct a controlled buy at petitioner's residence, and again, cited the August 26, 2012, controlled buy as part of the basis for probable cause for the warrant. This warrant was issued and the final controlled buy at petitioner's residence was completed on September 26, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the PNTF obtained a search warrant for petitioner's residence. Again, part of the basis in the affidavit for the probable cause for this warrant was the August 26, 2012, controlled buy. The search warrant was executed, and petitioner was arrested in conjunction with the execution of this warrant.
After indictment, on March 21, 2014, petitioner filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the electronic intercept warrants, and the search warrant executed at her residence, as well as a motion to suppress the identification testimony of the confidential informant. A hearing was held on petitioner's motions on April 21, 2014. The circuit court denied petitioner's motions by order dated April 28, 2014. On April 29, 2014, petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea to one charge of delivery of a controlled substance. Petitioner now appeals the circuit court's April 28, 2014, order denying her motions to suppress.
On appeal, petitioner raises four assignments of error. In her first two assignments of error, petitioner argues the circuit court erred in denying her motions to suppress. In her first assignment of error, petitioner contends that the circuit court erred in finding that evidence obtained during the August 26, 2012, illegal search of her home could serve as probable cause for the issuance of subsequent valid orders authorizing electronic intercept and a search warrant at her residence.2 In her second assignment of error, petitioner argues that the circuit court erredin finding that the affidavits submitted in support of the requests for electronic intercept warrants and the search warrant for her residence contained sufficient probable cause.3 Because of the interrelated nature of these assignments of error, we will address them together. We review such claims under the following standard of review:
When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most favorable to the State, as it was the prevailing party below. Because of the highly fact-specific nature of a motion to suppress, particular deference is given to the findings of the circuit court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to hear testimony on the issues. Therefore, the circuit court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996).
In State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595, 600, 461 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1995), we explained that the standard of review of a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress is a two-tier standard:
[W]e first review a circuit court's findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. Second, we review de novo questions of law and the circuit court's ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement action. Under the clearly erroneous standard, a circuit court's decision ordinarily will be affirmed unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence; based on an erroneous interpretation of applicable law; or, in light of the entire record, this Court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. See State v. Stuart, 192 W.Va. 428, 452 S.E.2d 886, 891 (1994). When we review the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. (Footnotes omitted).
Petitioner argues that each of the affidavits attached to the applications for electronic intercept warrants for her residence (October 2, 2012, March 25, 2013, and September 24, 2013) and the search warrant for her residence (September 27, 2013) contained information obtained during the August 26, 2012, controlled buy completed inside petitioner's residence, whichpetitioner contends was an illegal search.4 Petitioner suggests that any subsequent electronic intercept warrants or search warrant obtained in this matter, after August 26, 2012, were based, in part, on improperly obtained evidence, and should have been suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree."5
Respondent contends that petitioner's assertion that the lower court admitted or somehow permitted the use of illegally obtained audio recordings is simply misconstrued. The circuit court was clear in its order that the audio recordings from the August 26, 2012, controlled buy were not legally obtained and were, therefore, inadmissible. However, the circuit court specifically found that on August 26, 2012, petitioner invited the informant into her home, and sold the informant illegal drugs. The informant then reported the transaction to police and produced the illegal drugs, effectively providing evidence that petitioner was in fact selling drugs.
In construing all the facts related to petitioner's first and second assignments of error in the light most favorable to the State, and giving particular deference to the circuit court's findings, we find that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying petitioner's motion to suppress evidence obtained during any of the controlled buys after August 26, 2012, or the evidence obtained following the execution of the search warrant for petitioner's residence.
To continue reading
Request your trial