State v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 27 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. William H. RICHARDSON, Appellant. 387. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
HOWARD, Jduge.
Appellant was indicted and charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of dangerous drugs after a search executed pursuant to a search warrant disclosed such contraband in his possession. The court below found appellant guilty of the former crime. In a motion to suppress, in special action proceedings, and in this appeal, appellant contends that the affidavit for the search warrant failed to allege probable cause. On January 9, 1973, the challenged affidavit was presented, and the search warrant was issued. Because of its importance, we reproduce the affidavit below and divide it into five parts for ease in analysis.
'Your affiant, A. Carrillo has since 26 September 1972, conducted an investigation of the activities of WILLIAM RICHARDSON at 5951 East Oak Street, Tucson. Your affiant received information from Captain LaPonsie, that a confidential citizen informant had advised him of the unusual activities at this residence. On one occasion a large U-Haul truck came to the residence and persons were observed taking furniture from the residence and placing it into the U-Haul truck. The truck left the residence and returned two (2) days later. At this time persons were observed unloading what appeared to be the same furniture from the U-Haul truck and taking it into the residence. On a second occasion, a pickup truck bearing Arizona License WN-2443, was observed at the residence. Large plastic sacks, of the garbage variety, were seen being removed from the truck and being taken into the residence. This truck is registered to PAUL E. DOTY who is known to your affiant as a trafficker in large quantities of marijuana,
while conducting various surveillances at the residence, your affiant has observed an unusual quantity of vehicle traffic with over sixty (60) vehicles being recorded. Other persons known to your affiant to traffic in large quantities of marijuana, have been observed at the residence.
In the past week your affiant, has become aware of an increase in vehicle traffic to the residence with as many as twelve (12) vehicles being at the residence at one time.
On 9 January 1973, your affiant was advised by Captain LaPonsie that there were unusual activities at the residence. A red pickup truck, Arizona License NB--1249 was observed going to the Residence. Packages approximately five (5) inches wide, three (3) inches deep, and ten (10) inches long were observed being taken from the cab of the truck into the residence. Also observed at the residence was the Gold Mustang Mach I with black stripes, parked in the front yard. The spare tire was removed from the Mach I and taken into the residence. It was then brought back out to the vehicle and a tire removed from the vehicle and taken into the residence. After a time, this tire was brought out and placed on the vehicle, another tire was removed from the vehicle and taken into the residence. It is known to your affiant that large quantities of marijuana have been transported in the tires of vehicles and your affiant has had occasion to observe marijuana in tires on several occasions.
Your affiant has also received information from a confidential reliable informant who has been in the residence and has talked with WILLIAM RICHARDSON. The confidential and reliable informant has advised your affiant that WILLIAM RICHARDSON is trafficking in large quantities of kilo bricks of marijuana and some cocaine. The facts tending to show that this informant is reliable are, the informant has in the past made two (2) controlled purchases of narcotics, the informant has given information on various narcotics traffickers to your affiant that through an independent investigation have proven to be true. The informant has given your affiant information which has resulted in the arrest of three (3) persons and seizures of large quantities of narcotics. At the present time, two (2) persons have been indicated by a Federal Grand Jury and are awaiting trial. The thrid person has been indicted by the Pima County Grand Jury and is awaiting trial. Because the informant is aware of the possibility of personal injury or great bodily harm if the informant's identity were revealed and because the usefulness of the affiant would be jeopardized, your affiant asks that identity be concealed because of the circumstances described above, your affiant believes that there is a useable quantity of marijuana in the residence and vehicle listed above. Your affiant prays that a Search Warrant be issued.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gonzalez
......In light of this omission, "[t]he affidavit is not a hallmark of clarity, nor should it serve as a model for future police action." State v. Richardson, 22 Ariz. App. 449, 451, 528 P.2d 641, 643 (1974). A proper affidavit would clearly state and support the reasons why the commission of one crime suggests the commission of another, and it would explain why there "is reasonable cause to believe that the specific 'things' to be searched for and ......
-
Freanel & Son Gilbert LLC v. Fashionable Expectations LLC
......1 CA-CV 08-0853 COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DEPARTMENT C Dated: May 20, 2010 NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY ......
-
State v. Starkovich
......Gay, 214 Ariz. 214, 217, ¶ 4 (App. 2007). Moreover, in cases where "two interpretations of an affidavit may be equally reasonable, we will not hold as a matter of law that the court below erred in finding the affidavit sufficient." State v. Richardson, 22 Ariz. App. 449, 452 (1974).¶17 As established in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), a defendant is entitled to challenge a search warrant affidavit if he makes a substantial preliminary showing that (1) the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth ......
- Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pribbeno, 1183