State v. Krukowski, 20030154.

• Decision Date: 05 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. 20030154.,20030154.
• Citation: 2004 UT 94,100 P.3d 1222
• Parties: State of Utah, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. Randy Peter Krukowski, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

2004 UT 94

100 P.3d 1222

State of Utah, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. Randy Peter Krukowski, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 20030154.

Supreme Court of Utah.

FILED November 5, 2004.

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter.

Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Jeffrey S. Gray, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Stephen R. McCaughey, Salt Lake City, for defendant

PARRISH, Justice:

¶1 In this case, we decide whether police officers seeking a search warrant are obligated to disclose to the magistrate a prior illegal entry onto the premises to be searched. Police officers entered a storage unit containing evidence of methamphetamine production without first obtaining a warrant. The storage unit was under the control of defendant Randy Krukowski. Although the police officers subsequently sought a warrant, they failed to inform the magistrate of their prior illegal entry. The magistrate issued the warrant, and the police officers again entered the unit, this time seizing evidence. Krukowski moved to suppress that evidence on the ground that the police officers had not informed the magistrate of the prior illegal entry when seeking the warrant. The trial court granted Krukowski's motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari, and now reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Mike McNaughton, a narcotics detective, received information from reliable confidential informants indicating that a "Randy Kawalski" was manufacturing methamphetamine in unit sixteen of the Midvale Self Storage facility. That tip led McNaughton to the facility, where he observed a red truck registered to Randy Krukowski parked in front of unit sixteen. McNaughton also observed that the door to unit sixteen was ajar.

¶3 On the basis of his observations, McNaughton requested additional narcotics detectives and a police dog to assist him at the scene. McNaughton directed the canine handler to lead the dog past storage units fifteen through eighteen. In front of unit fifteen, the dog alerted the police officers to the presence of narcotics. However, taking into account his experience, the direction of the wind, and the fact that the door to unit sixteen was ajar, the handler indicated that he believed drugs were located inside unit sixteen.

¶4 When McNaughton knocked on the door to unit sixteen, Krukowski answered, shutting the door behind him as he slipped outside. The officers requested permission to enter the unit, but Krukowski refused. McNaughton and another officer nevertheless entered and saw a methamphetamine production laboratory. The officers then exited the unit and disconnected its electricity. Some of the officers detained Krukowski and secured the premises while McNaughton left to seek a search warrant from a magistrate.

¶5 The affidavit accompanying McNaughton's application for a search warrant recited the information McNaughton had received from the confidential informants, as well as McNaughton's observations at the storage facility prior to the illegal entry. McNaughton's affidavit did not, however, disclose any information gleaned from McNaughton's entry into unit sixteen. In fact, the affidavit never mentioned the entry.

¶6 Finding that the affidavit established probable cause, the magistrate issued a warrant. The police officers then returned to the storage facility with the warrant, searched unit sixteen, seized the methamphetamine lab, and arrested Krukowski. The State charged Krukowski with operation of a clandestine lab and unlawful possession of a controlled or counterfeit substance with intent to distribute, both first degree felonies.

¶7 Krukowski moved to suppress the evidence gathered in the search, arguing that, pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the warrant was invalid because McNaughton had knowingly or recklessly omitted from the warrant affidavit the material fact of his prior entry.¹ Although the State admitted that the initial warrantless entry was unlawful, it argued that the subsequent search, conducted pursuant to the warrant, was nevertheless valid under the independent source doctrine articulated in Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988). Under Murray, a warrant-based seizure that follows an unlawful entry is not subject to the exclusionary rule if the State establishes that neither the officer's decision to seek the warrant nor the magistrate's probable cause determination was prompted by observations made during the unlawful entry. Id. at 540.

¶8 The trial court granted Krukowski's motion and suppressed the evidence seized during the search, stating that Murray "require[s] an officer to inform a magistrate of [a] prior illegal entry in order to meet the heightened burden of convincing the magistrate that whatever was found during that initial illegal entry was not used to establish probable cause." Unpersuaded by McNaughton's testimony that he would have sought the warrant even had he not illegally entered the storage unit, the trial court concluded that McNaughton had not met that heightened burden. In so concluding, the trial court stated that it had "little confidence" in McNaughton's testimony "[b]ased upon the fact that [McNaughton] did not advise [the magistrate] of the fact that he made an illegal entry."

¶9 Concluding that the trial court correctly interpreted the scope of a police officer's duty to be candid when seeking a warrant from a magistrate, the court of appeals affirmed, holding that "an officer must be forthcoming about any conduct related to the search warrant request so that a magistrate can determine, independently, how, or if, the prior conduct impacts a probable cause determination." State v. Krukowski, 2002 UT App 433, ¶ 14, 62 P.3d 452. Additionally, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that McNaughton was not credible. Id. at ¶ 16.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶10 "It is a fundamental tenet of certiorari review that we review the decision of the court of appeals, not that of the trial court." State ex rel. M.W., 2000 UT 79, ¶ 8, 12 P.3d 80 (internal quotations omitted). In this case, we review for correctness and without deference the court of appeals' legal conclusion that a police officer seeking a warrant is required to disclose to the magistrate the existence of any prior illegal entry onto the premises. See Hardinger v. Scott (State ex rel. B.B.), 2004 UT 39, ¶ 5, 94 P.3d 252.

¶11 We are also required to review the question of McNaughton's credibility, which presents an issue of fact. "'[F]actual findings underlying the trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence'" are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Veteto, 2000 UT 62, ¶ 8, 6 P.3d 1133 (quoting State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 939 n.4 (Utah 1994)). In this case, however, the State asserts that the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's determination of Officer McNaughton's credibility on the basis of an erroneous conclusion of law. We apply a correctness standard when reviewing the legal principle upon which the credibility determination is based. See Hardinger, 2004 UT 39 at ¶ 5.

ANALYSIS

¶12 The court of appeals erred in holding that McNaughton was obligated to disclose his illegal entry and in concluding that he was not credible because he failed to do so. Contrary to the court of appeals' holding, police officers are not required to disclose prior illegal entries when seeking a search warrant; such entries are simply not material to a magistrate's determination of probable cause, and the potentially prejudicial effect of disclosing to the magistrate a prior illegal entry outweighs any conceivable benefit to be obtained from it. Moreover, the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's conclusion that McNaughton was not credible because he did not disclose the prior illegal entry. Because that determination was based on an erroneous legal conclusion, the State is entitled to a new credibility assessment by the trial court unless, on remand, Krukowski is able to persuade the court of appeals that the suppression order should be affirmed on alternative grounds.

I. THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE BEFORE A MAGISTRATE

¶13 In holding that McNaughton was obligated to disclose the prior warrantless entry to the magistrate, the court of appeals reasoned that "an officer must be forthcoming about any conduct related to the search warrant request so that a magistrate can determine, independently, how, or if, the prior conduct impacts a probable cause determination." Krukowski, 2002 UT App 433 at ¶ 14. To support its reasoning, the court of appeals relied on Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), as applied by this court in State v. Nielsen, 727 P.2d 188 (Utah 1986).² Krukowski, 2002 UT App 433 at ¶¶ 14-16.

¶14 In Franks, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement rests on the premise "that there will be a truthful showing" of probable cause. 438 U.S. at 164-65 (internal quotations omitted). If the trial court finds that a false statement in a warrant affidavit was made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth and that the false statement materially affected the magistrate's determination of probable cause, "the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit." Id. at 156.

¶15 In Nielsen, we extended the Franks holding to cases involving material omissions. Just as police officers may not include materially false statements in a warrant affidavit, they similarly cannot omit information that "materially affects the finding of probable cause." 727 P.2d at 191. Under Nielsen, omitted information will be deemed material "[i]f an affidavit fails to support a finding of probable cause after . . . the omitted information is added." Id.

¶16 While Franks and Nielsen...