State v. Maffeo, 4811-II

• Decision Date: 22 January 1982
• Docket Number: No. 4811-II,4811-II
• Citation: 31 Wn.App. 198,642 P.2d 404
• Parties: The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Hans Joseph MAFFEO, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 198

31 Wn.App. 198

642 P.2d 404

The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Hans Joseph MAFFEO, Appellant.

No. 4811-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

Jan. 22, 1982.

Review Denied April 23, 1982.

Ben Shafton, Vancouver, for appellant.

Roger A. Bennett, Clark County Deputy Pros., Vancouver, for respondent.

REED, Chief Judge:

Hans Joseph Maffeo contends that his conviction of delivery of a controlled substance was based on evidence gathered pursuant to a defective search warrant. He asserts that the supporting affidavit was facially insufficient to establish probable cause. We disagree and affirm defendant's conviction.

Deputy Robert Reese of the Clark County Sheriff's Office alleged, in essence, the following facts in an affidavit prepared to support the issuance of a search warrant for defendant's residence.

(1) An informant claimed he could introduce Reese to an individual who had connections with a large cocaine dealer.

(2) Reese was introduced to Michael Martin, the intermediary, and negotiated the purchase of one-half pound of cocaine. This agreement provided for the preliminary purchase of a two-gram sample.

(3) During this initial meeting a confederate of Martin's arrived, spoke with Martin briefly, then left.

(4) Martin advised Reese that his confederate, Carl Robinson, was going to the home of a person named "Hans" to obtain the sample and would meet them at a rendezvous point.

(5) Police surveillance units followed Robinson directly to Hans' residence, then directly to the meeting place.

(6) Robinson was introduced to Reese at which time Reese purchased the sample with bills having prerecorded serial numbers.

(7) Robinson told Reese he obtained the cocaine from "Hans."

(8) The parties then agreed that Reese would test the cocaine and return with funds to complete the transaction. As soon as Reese left, Robinson returned directly to Hans' residence.

(9) Reese conducted a field chemical test on the sample; the result was positive for cocaine.

Based on these allegations, Judge Robert Harris of the Superior Court for Clark County authorized a search of defendant's residence for the suspected cache of cocaine and the recorded bills. After officers confronted the defendant with additional cocaine and the marked bills they found at the residence, Maffeo confessed to delivering cocaine to Carl Robinson.

The crux of defendant's argument is that the supporting affidavit provides insufficient facts and circumstances from which a magistrate might reasonably conclude that cocaine and the marked money could be found at defendant's residence. We note that Maffeo does not challenge the veracity of Deputy Reese's allegations; rather, he asserts that the affidavit is facially inadequate because an insufficient nexus was established between the cocaine, the marked bills, and his residence.

We will assume here that the statements of Martin and Robinson, implicating defendant as the source of their cocaine, are indispensible to establish this connection. ¹ Maffeo argues that these statements do not pass the two-pronged test of Aguilar-Spinelli for determining whether an informant's information is sufficient to establish probable cause. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). We disagree. The "veracity" prong of Aguilar-Spinelli examines the truthfulness of the informant. The "basis of knowledge" prong tests whether the informant's conclusions are supported by a sufficient factual basis. Id. This latter inquiry does not draw into question the veracity of the informant's information; rather, it tests the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from the information. In conducting this evaluation the magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances set forth in the supporting affidavit. State v. Frye, 26 Wash.App. 276, 613 P.2d 152 (1980). Considering Martin and Robinson were intimately associated with the cocaine transaction, it is reasonable to infer they spoke from first-hand knowledge when they advised Deputy Reese that the cocaine was obtained from the defendant. Further, these statements are corroborated by police observation of Robinson proceeding directly to Maffeo's residence after conferring with Martin, and returning immediately with the cocaine. Robinson went directly to the house with the marked money after Reese left to obtain more funds for a larger purchase.

The defendant maintains that our decision should be controlled by State v. Smith, 28 Wash.App. 387, 624 P.2d 191 (1981). In Smith an unproven informant advised police that he could purchase heroin from Smith through a third party. The buy was arranged. Police officers observed the third party meet with the informant, then go directly to Smith's residence and return. After this meeting the informant turned over a balloon of heroin to the police, advising them it was purchased from the third party. The informant also stated that the third party told him that the heroin was obtained from Smith. We concluded that these allegations were insufficient to support the issuance of a...