State v. Romero
| Decision Date | 07 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007AP1139-CR.,2007AP1139-CR. |
| Citation | 765 N.W.2d 756,2009 WI 32 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Jaime ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Michael J. Losse, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.
For the defendant-appellant there was a brief by Thomas E. Hayes, and the Law Offices of Michael E. Hayes, Milwaukee, and oral by Thomas E. Hayes.
The State seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals reversing a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Dennis P. Moroney, Judge.1 The circuit court denied defendant Jaime Romero's motion to suppress evidence that law enforcement officers seized during the execution of a search warrant at the defendant's residence. The defendant was convicted of the manufacture, distribution, or delivery of more than 40 grams of cocaine as a party to a crime contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(1m)(cm)4. and 939.05 (2005-06).2
¶ 2 The single issue on review is whether probable cause existed for issuance of the warrant to search the defendant's residence when the affidavit in support of the search warrant was based in part on statements of an unnamed participant in a police sting. We refer to this participant as Mr. X for ease of discussion.3 Mr. X is quoted in the affidavit as saying that the cocaine he furnished to a confidential informant (who was cooperating with the police) was supplied by the defendant.
¶ 3 In deciding whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant, the reviewing court examines the totality of the circumstances presented to the warrant-issuing commissioner to determine whether the warrant-issuing commissioner had a substantial basis for concluding that there was a fair probability that a search of the specified premises would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.4
¶ 4 We conclude that the affidavit supporting the warrant to search the defendant's residence resting in part on the statements of Mr. X meets the totality of the circumstances test. The warrant-issuing commissioner had a substantial basis for concluding on the totality of the circumstances that there was a fair probability that a search of the specified premises would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. We therefore sustain the warrant-issuing commissioner's determination that probable cause existed for issuance of the warrant in the instant case.
¶ 5 Having concluded that the warrant to search the defendant's residence was supported by probable cause, we need not decide the other issue the parties address in their briefs to this court, namely whether the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule would apply if probable cause did not exist for issuance of the warrant in the instant case.5
¶ 6 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's judgment of conviction and affirm the judgment of conviction.
¶ 7 We summarize the facts relating to the circuit court's order denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of the search warrant at the defendant's residence.
¶ 8 On July 13, 2006, law enforcement officers in the city of Milwaukee applied for a warrant to search the defendant's residence. The application was supported by an affidavit of Officer Miguel Correa of the Milwaukee Police Department.
¶ 9 Officer Correa's seven-page affidavit largely describes a law enforcement operation in which a confidential police informant purchased cocaine from an unnamed individual, referred to herein as Mr. X. Mr. X claimed that he had obtained the cocaine from the defendant. Neither the confidential informant nor any police officer witnessed Mr. X acquire the cocaine from the defendant. In other words, Officer Correa's affidavit contains no affirmative allegation that he, any other law enforcement officer, or the confidential informant cooperating with the police had personal knowledge that the defendant furnished the cocaine to Mr. X, who in turn gave the cocaine to the confidential informant.
¶ 10 Officer Correa's affidavit sets forth the following assertions of fact, among many others:
• A confidential informant told Officer Correa that within the last 72 hours the confidential informant had spoken with an unnamed individual (Mr. X) who claimed that he could purchase cocaine for the confidential informant from an unnamed third party.
• Officer Correa monitored a telephone call in which the confidential informant called Mr. X and ordered cocaine. Mr. X directed the confidential informant to meet him so that the two could go to the home of the unnamed third party to purchase cocaine.
• Officer Correa provided the confidential informant with money to buy the cocaine. Officer Correa searched the confidential informant's person and automobile for money, drugs, or other contraband before and after the confidential informant met with Mr. X.6
• Officer Correa and other law enforcement officers followed the confidential informant's vehicle to a place where the officers observed Mr. X enter the confidential informant's vehicle.
• Officer Correa and the other officers followed the confidential informant and Mr. X to an area near 205 E. Montana Street.
• A law enforcement officer named Corporal DiTorrice informed Officer Correa that shortly after the informants and law enforcement officers arrived at the area near 205 E. Montana Street, Corporal DiTorrice observed a person later identified as the defendant exit through the front door of 205 E. Montana Street, motion to Mr. X to go towards the alley/garage directly behind 205 E. Montana Street, and then walk towards that alley/garage area himself.
• A law enforcement officer named Detective Dalland informed Officer Correa that he observed Mr. X enter the garage through the open garage door; that after a short while he also observed Mr. X exit the garage and enter the confidential informant's automobile; and that he finally observed the confidential informant and Mr. X drive away and the garage door close.
• Corporal DiTorrice informed Officer Correa that he observed the person later identified as the defendant walk back to the front door of 205 E. Montana Street, look around before entering, and walk through the front door without waiting to be let in.
• Officer Correa personally observed the confidential informant travel with Mr. X and then let Mr. X out of his car.
• Officer Correa followed the confidential informant to a predetermined location, where he met and spoke with the confidential informant.
• The confidential informant told Officer Correa that Mr. X had entered the confidential informant's automobile and had directed the confidential informant to drive to the area of 205 E. Montana Street.
• The confidential informant told Officer Correa that while en route to 205 E. Montana Street, Mr. X ordered cocaine over the telephone.
• The confidential informant told Officer Correa that when the confidential informant and Mr. X arrived at their destination, Mr. X directed the confidential informant to stay in the car and that the confidential informant gave Mr. X money to buy cocaine.
• The confidential informant told Officer Correa that Mr. X exited the automobile and walked towards the garage behind a tan and brown house.
• The confidential informant told Officer Correa that Mr. X returned to the automobile a short time later and handed the confidential informant a clear sandwich bag containing material which the confidential informant believed to be cocaine.
• The confidential informant turned this sandwich bag over to Officer Correa. The bag contained an off-white, chalky substance which Officer Correa also believed to be cocaine.
• A sample of the material in the bag later tested positive for the presence of cocaine.
• The confidential informant told Officer Correa that Mr. X had referred to the person later identified as the defendant by the name "Jaime."
• Officer Correa discovered an active utilities account for 205 E. Montana Street in the name of "Jaime Romero," that is, the defendant's name.
• The confidential informant told Officer Correa that the defendant drove a Lincoln Navigator.
• Officer Correa, within 72 hours prior to signing his affidavit, personally observed a green Lincoln Navigator parked directly in front of 205 E. Montana Street.
• The license plate on the green Lincoln Navigator listed to the defendant, Jaime Romero of 205 E. Montana Street.
• Officer Correa showed the confidential informant a driver's license photo of the defendant, and the confidential informant identified the defendant as the person whom the confidential informant observed exiting the front door of 205 E. Montana Street and proceeding toward the garage which Mr. X entered.
• Officer Correa believed the confidential informant to be a credible person because Officer Correa knew that the confidential informant had assisted law enforcement officers in purchasing controlled substances on more than three prior occasions and because the confidential informant's assistance had resulted in more than three drug convictions.
¶ 11 Court Commissioner Barry Slagle authorized the search warrant. The warrant describes the premises to be searched as 205 East Montana Street, the lower unit of a beige-and-tan colored, two-story duplex residence in Milwaukee. The warrant describes the objects of the search as cocaine, several items related to the use or sale of cocaine, documents identifying the person in control of 205 E. Montana Street, weapons, and certain telecommunication devices.
¶ 12 Law enforcement officers executed the search warrant and seized over 147 grams of cocaine from the defendant's residence. The State charged the defendant with the manufacture, distribution, or delivery of more than 40 grams...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Wis. v. Robinson
...... Wisconsin courts require additional evidence of the reliability of a tip even when it comes from a confidential informant, known to police officers, who has provided reliable information in the past. . State v. Romero, 2009 WI 32, ¶ 26, 317 Wis.2d 12, 765 N.W.2d 756. Independent corroboration of the reliability of the tip is required. ¶ 59 The majority is correct that corroboration of innocent, although significant details may provide indicia of the reliability of an anonymous tip. I agree ......
-
State v. Jackson
......Romero, 2009 WI 32, ¶ 3, 317 Wis.2d 12, 765 N.W.2d 756 ). ¶ 42 Given that the officers conducted the search pursuant to a valid warrant, the court of appeals next concluded that the officers inevitably would have discovered the knife and clothing. Id., ¶¶ 22, 43. Applying a framework set forth in ......
-
State v. Silverstein, Appeal No. 2016AP1464-CR.
...that there was a fair probability that a search of the specified premises would uncover evidence of wrongdoing." State v. Romero , 2009 WI 32, ¶3, 317 Wis. 2d 12, 765 N.W.2d 756. This is a totality of the evidence test. Id. "We accord great deference to the warrant-issuing judge's determina......
-
State v. Brian T. St. Martin
......State v. Romero, 2009 WI 32, ¶ 3, 317 Wis.2d 12, 765 N.W.2d 756. The standard of review for a challenge to [334 Wis.2d 303] the issuance of a search warrant has been stated by this court as follows: [800 N.W.2d 865] [T]his court must determine whether the ......