State v. Freeman

• Decision Date: 28 May 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 17298-1-,17321-9-I
• Citation: State v. Freeman, 737 P.2d 704, 47 Wn.App. 870 (Wash. App. 1987)
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Shawn Patrick FREEMAN and Brett Alan Sheldon, and each of them, Appellants,
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 870

47 Wn.App. 870

737 P.2d 704

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Shawn Patrick FREEMAN and Brett Alan Sheldon, and each of them, Appellants,

Nos. 17298-1-I, 17321-9-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington Division 1.

May 28, 1987.

Review Denied Sept. 1, 1987.

[737 P.2d 705] Terrence Kellogg, Seattle, for Brett Alan Sheldon.

Susan Roe, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for State of Wash.

PEKELIS, Judge.

Shawn Patrick Freeman and Brett Alan Sheldon appeal the trial court's denial of their motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. ¹ They contend that the trial court erred in finding that the search warrant affidavit set forth sufficient facts to establish the informant's veracity and reliability. We affirm the trial court.

The facts are not in dispute. On October 9, 1985, the Seattle District Court issued a warrant to search the house, garage and car where Freeman and Sheldon resided. The warrant was based on an affidavit signed by Marc Edmonds, a King County detective. In his affidavit, Detective Edmonds stated:

That on Tuesday, October 9, 1984, your affiant was contacted by Special Agent VERA THOMPSON of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, who indicated to your affiant that a Confidential reliable Informant had contacted her and related the following. That within the past 48 hours the Confidential Informant had been at the above-described residence where, while at that residence, observed 60 to 80 growing 4 ft tall marijuana plants in the basement of that residence. That this Confidential Informant also related that these plants were being grown under large bulbs with shields around them. That this Informant also noticed numerous buckets and misc. electrical equipment throughout the basement. This Informant also indicated that the walls were covered with a reflective type material very similar to aluminum foil. This Informant also indicated that the windows around the entire basement had been covered with some type of material to prevent anyone from seeing into the basement area. That this Informant also provided information that a BRETT SHELDON and a SHAWN PATRICK FREEMAN reside at that residence. That Special Agent THOMPSON conducted a utilities and telephone record check for that residence and found that a BRETT SHELDON has the utilities in his name and that SHAWN PATRICK FREEMAN has a telephone billing in his name. That this C/I is familiar with marijuana in the growing and processing states through prior use and association with users and growers. That this Informant has been associated with the U.S. DEA for two months and is classed as a Confidential and reliable Informant. That this Informant has introduced the U.S. DEA to a subject where that individual was subsequently arrested and charged with the delivery of a controlled substance and also a quantity of controlled substances were seized. That Special Agent THOMPSON indicated to your affiant that the information provided by the C/I regarding BRETT SHELDON and SHAWN PATRICK FREEMAN has shown to be correct. That your affiant is aware that marijuana growers use halide lights with shades to grow marijuana indoors. That these lights produce a high intensity light, forcing the growers to cover the windows to prevent detection. That your affiant is also aware that many indoor marijuana growers will use an aluminum type foil to cover the walls so that the light will reflect onto the plants to assist in growing. That your affiant has been a police officer for eight years and during that time has conducted over 500 controlled substance investigations. That at least 100 of these investigations involved marijuana grow farms. That the informant also stated that the subjects at the above residence store their processed marijuana inside the detached garage as well as under the front seat of a sports car inside that garage.

(Emphasis added.)

King County police officers executed the warrant, seized the marijuana, and arrested Freeman and Sheldon. Both were charged with possession of more than 40 grams of marijuana in violation of RCW 69.50.401(d).

Freeman and Sheldon moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant on the basis that the affidavit did not sufficiently establish the reliability of the informant. The court denied their motion to suppress and they appeal. ²

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews the validity of a search warrant for abuse of discretion, State v. Smith, 93 Wash.2d 329, 352, 610 P.2d 869, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 873, 101 S.Ct. 213, 66 L.Ed.2d 93 (1980), giving great deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause, State v. Seagull, 95 Wash.2d 898, 907, 632 P.2d 44 (1981). In interpreting a search warrant affidavit, reviewing courts are to determine whether an ordinary person reading the affidavit would understand that a criminal violation existed and was continuing at the time of the search warrant application. State v. Fisher, 96 Wash.2d 962, 965, 639 P.2d 743, cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137, 102 S.Ct. 2967, 73 L.Ed.2d 1355 (1982). Courts should evaluate the affidavit in a commonsensical, rather than hypertechnical, manner. Fisher, 96 Wash.2d at 965, 639 P.2d 743. Doubts should be resolved in favor of the warrant's validity. Fisher, 96 Wash.2d at 964, 639 P.2d 743.

ANALYSIS

Freeman and Sheldon concede that the search warrant affidavit sets forth facts sufficient to establish probable cause that criminal activity had occurred or was occurring. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the affidavit provided the magistrate with sufficient information to judge the informant's reliability and veracity.

Freeman and Sheldon contend that the affidavit failed to describe a "track record" for the informant demonstrating his reliability and veracity. The only portion of the affidavit that relates to the informant's reliability is the statement that the informant introduced an individual to a DEA agent, and that this individual was later arrested and charged with delivery of a controlled substance. They argue that the affidavit does not tell the issuing magistrate that there is any relationship between these two events.

Washington courts apply the Aguilar-Spinelli test to determine whether probable cause existed to issue a search warrant. See State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432, 440, 688 P.2d 136 (1984) (rejecting the United States Supreme Court's "totality of circumstances" test established in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). Under the 2-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test, the informant's tip creates probable cause for a search warrant if: (1) the affidavit presents some factual basis for the informant's conclusion that criminal activity was taking place; (2) the affidavit presents some factual basis for the officer's conclusion that the informant was credible or his information reliable. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d at 435, 688 P.2d 136 (citing Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 413, 89 S.Ct. 584, 587, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964)). The first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test focuses on the basis of the informant's knowledge, Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 437, 688 P.2d 136, while the second focuses on the informant's veracity or reliability, Fisher, 96 Wash.2d at 965, 639 P.2d 743. While each prong is "analytically severable," a search warrant affidavit must satisfy both prongs of the test to pass constitutional muster. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d at 437, 688 P.2d 136.

At issue in the case sub judice is whether the search warrant affidavit satisfied the "veracity prong" of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. To establish an informant's veracity, the affidavit must present facts sufficient to enable the magistrate to "determine either the inherent credibility or reliability of the informant on the particular occasion." Fisher, 96 Wash.2d at 965, 639 P.2d 743. A statement that the informant is credible is not sufficient. Fisher, 96 Wash.2d at 965, 639 P.2d 743. Neither is a mere assertion that the tip came from an informant " 'who has proven to be reliable in the past.' " State v. Woodall, 100 Wash.2d 74, 76, 666 P.2d 364 (1983) (quoting the search warrant affidavit). Unless the tip is independently corroborated, some factual description of the informant's "track record" as an informant is necessary to establish the informant's reliability. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d at 437, 688 P.2d 136. For example, in State v. Wolken, 103 Wash.2d 823, 827, 700 P.2d 319 (1985), the court upheld an affidavit which stated that the informant had previously provided an Oregon police officer with information that led to one arrest and the seizure of marijuana. The court held that this statement sufficiently satisfied the veracity prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. Wolken, 103 Wash.2d at 827, 700 P.2d 319.

The affidavit here described an informant's introduction to the DEA of an individual "where that individual was subsequently arrested and charged with the delivery of a controlled substance". (Emphasis added.) Freeman and Sheldon contend that the use of the word "where" does not sufficiently describe a "nexus" between the informant's introduction and the subsequent arrest and conviction. Their argument focuses on the absence of the word "led" which, they claim, distinguishes their case from Wolken. We reject this hypertechnical reading of the affidavit and employ a commonsensical reading of the word "where." In context, there is little doubt that "where" means "where, as a consequence." We hold that the affidavit...