State v. Hawkins

• Decision Date: 13 April 1979
• Docket Number: No. 49395.,49395.
• Citation: 278 NW 2d 750
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Tommy HAWKINS, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

278 N.W.2d 750 (1979)

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Tommy HAWKINS, Appellant.

No. 49395.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 13, 1979.

Ragnhild Anne Westby, St. Paul, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, William B. Randall, County Atty., and Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty on each count of a three-count complaint charging him with possession of heroin with intent to sell, possession of heroin, and possession of cocaine, and was sentenced on the first and third counts to concurrent terms of 15 years and 5 years in prison. The controlled substances involved were seized by police during a warranted search of defendant's residence, which he shared with his girl friend. Defendant's basic contention on appeal is that the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant failed to establish probable cause. We agree with the district court that the affidavit, although poorly drawn, was adequate to support the issuance of the warrant, and accordingly we affirm.

The affidavit, which we reproduce below in relevant part,¹ refers initially to hearsay information provided by an unidentified police informer. A reading of the entire affidavit, however, makes it clear to us that we need not discuss whether the so-called Aguilar test² was satisfied, since the affidavit, when viewed in a realistic, common-sense fashion, contains information indicating that officers of the narcotics division had made observations in themselves sufficient to demonstrate the existence of probable cause to believe that narcotics would be found in a search of the residence. See, United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). In other words, it was not necessary to resort to hearsay information to justify the issuance of the warrant.³

Specifically, the affidavit, although poorly worded, indicates (a) that the officers had participated in two "controlled purchases" within the previous 2-week period (one of the two being within the previous 72-hour period); (b) that such participation involved providing an unidentified informant with money and then observing his movements and those of his contact; (c) that the unidentified informant went to the residence of a man named Cain, who in turn went to defendant's residence; (d) that Cain emerged from defendant's residence after only a minute inside; and (e) that Cain then gave heroin to the unidentified informant, who gave it to the officers. From our reading of the records in a number of drug cases which have come before this court, it is apparent that the term "controlled purchase" is a term of art which has a specific meaning in law enforcement circles, and the magistrate presumably was aware of the meaning of this term. A "controlled purchase" involves providing money to a buyer, who is searched before and after making contact with the seller. It also involves police surveillance of as much of the transaction between the buyer and seller as possible. It is true that what the police saw during the "controlled purchase" was not enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the heroin which the informant got from Cain came...