State v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 21 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2030-CR,90-2030-CR |
| Citation | 471 N.W.2d 301,163 Wis.2d 420 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eddie HANSON, Defendant-Appellant. d |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Virginia A. Pomeroy, Asst. State Public Defender, Milwaukee, for defendant-appellant.
James E. Doyle, Atty. General, by Stephen W. Kleinmaier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before MOSER, P.J., and SULLIVAN and FINE, JJ.
Eddie Hanson (Hanson) appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count of cocaine possession with intent to deliver in violation of secs. 161.16(2)(b)1 and 161.41(lm)(c)3, Stats. (1987-88). Following a controlled buy by an informant, the Milwaukee Police Department obtained a no-knock search warrant for Hanson's house on North 29th Street in Milwaukee. The search produced 144 grams of cocaine and three revolvers in Hanson's possession. Hanson was charged on September 9, 1988.
Hanson waived his right to a preliminary hearing, and on August 18, 1989, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search. Hanson contended that the search warrant was invalid because the affidavit used to get the warrant did not show informant reliability, nor was there a justification for a no-knock search. Hanson's motion was argued before, and denied by, the trial court on December 8, 1989.
Hanson pled guilty to the charge on January 25, 1990. He was sentenced to five years in prison on March 23. Hanson now appeals raising the same two arguments that he raised during the suppression motion hearing. We reject both arguments and affirm.
The first issue is whether the search warrant was invalid because it was grounded on information from an informant whose reliability had not been sufficiently proven. Hanson contends that an informant's participation in a controlled buy is insufficient grounds for the issuance of a warrant. He believes that the law requires an informant to have a "track record" established with the police.
When reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit for a search warrant, we give great deference to the issuing magistrate's determination of probable cause. 1
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense 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. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a "substantial basis for ... conclud[ing]" that probable cause existed. 2
Hence, this leaves the warrant-issuing magistrate a totality-of-the-circumstances test to apply in determining whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant. 3
In this case, the totality-of-the-circumstances test was clearly met by the controlled buy. One author has stated that one "situation in which the corroboration will suffice to show veracity is that in which the informant has not been working independently, but rather has cooperated closely with the police, as is true when the information makes a controlled purchase of narcotics." 4 Detective Richard Tarczynski, in his affidavit supporting the request for the search warrant, stated that the informant had told him that he could purchase cocaine at the North 29th Street address. Having taken the informant to the address, Tarczynski searched him, gave him money to buy cocaine, watched the informant enter the residence, return from the residence, and come directly to him. Tarczynski then received cocaine from the informant and searched him to show that the informant had neither money nor additional drugs on his person nor in his clothes. The substance was immediately field tested and later tested at the crime laboratory. Both tests were positive for cocaine.
A rigorous controlled buy of this nature satisfies the probable cause requirement for issuing a search warrant. Other jurisdictions have permitted the issuance of a search warrant based on evidence given by a first-time informant on a controlled buy. 5 After all, there must always be a first time for the use of an informant, and if sufficient care is taken to verify his or her information, such as through a controlled buy, there is no constitutional reason for us to consider it insufficient. 6
Hanson's second argument is that the affidavit used to support getting the search warrant was insufficient in particularities to justify a no-knock entry. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that where the affidavit in support of a petition for a search warrant sets forth special circumstances with sufficient particularity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stevens, 92-1557-CR
...to believe that the defendant, who was suspected of drug trafficking, was carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Hanson, 163 Wis.2d 420, 424-25, 471 N.W.2d 301 (Ct.App.1991); State v. Watkinson, 161 Wis.2d 750, 468 N.W.2d 763 (Ct.App.1991).3 One of the primary safeguards against general sear......
-
U.S. v. Singer
...Singer's case--possession of a firearm--is sufficient to support the issuance of a no-knock warrant. See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Hanson, 163 Wis.2d 420, 471 N.W.2d 301 (App.1991); State v. Watkinson, 161 Wis.2d 750, 468 N.W.2d 763, 766 (App.1991) (drug dealer's possession of gun in his residenc......
-
State v. Loranger
...is simply to ensure that the commissioner had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. State v. Hanson, 163 Wis. 2d 420, 423, 471 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶ 23. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the issuing court commissioner had a substan......
-
State v. Kerr
...527 (1983), and United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3416, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)); State v. Hanson, 163 Wis.2d 420, 422-423, 471 N.W.2d 301 (Ct.App.1991). The deferential standard of review is " 'appropriate to further the Fourth Amendment's strong preference for search......