State v. Valde
| Decision Date | 22 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 56652,56652 |
| Citation | 225 N.W.2d 313 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Allan VALDE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Raymond Rosenberg, Des Moines, for appellants.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., David M. Dryer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ruth R. Harkin, County Atty., for appellee.
Heard by MOORE, C.J., and MASON, REES, UHLENHOPP and REYNOLDSON, JJ.
Defendants were charged in separate county attorney's informations with the crime of possession of schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 controlled substances in violation of Chapter 204, The Code, 1971, as amended by the Acts of the 64th General Assembly. The cases were consolidated for trial and the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to each defendant. They now appeal. We affirm.
The central question in this appeal is whether trial court erred in overruling defendants' motion to suppress evidence seized during a search, and in overruling objections urged at trial challenging the legality of the warrant pursuant to which the search was conducted. Defendants also contend trial court erred in overruling their motions for directed verdict made at the close of the State's evidence.
On November 25, 1972, a norcotics detective for the Ames Police Department, one Bill Johnston, met with Mr. & Mrs. Charles Handley, the owners of an apartment building at 139 North Sheldon in Ames, at Department Headquarters. The Handleys informed Johnston that during a routine inspection of apartment #4 in their building they had noticed a quantity of plastic bags containing what they suspected to be marijuana in a wide open dresser drawer. They also said they had observed a small measuring scale in the apartment. It was conceded at trial defendants Thomas, Wood and McAlpin were the lessees of the apartment. When the Handleys made their first inspection of the premises, Valde was present in the apartment and the lessees were absent during a quarter break at the University.
After Mr. & Mrs. Handley reported their observations to Detective Johnston they accompanied him in approaching the magistrate, Judge McKinney, for the purpose of obtaining a search warrant. After hearing the testimony of Charles Handley and reviewing the application submitted by Detective Johnston, Judge McKinney directed that a search warrant be issued. The apartment in question was subsequently searched and the evidence defendants sought to suppress seized.
I. Defendants contend the information for search warrant failed to include a sufficient showing of the underlying facts and circumstances upon which the magistrate could independently reach a probable cause determination. They argue the search warrant was therefore improperly issued and trial court erred in overruling their motion to suppress evidence obtained by virtue of a search conducted pursuant to the warrant.
Admittedly, no underlying facts or circumstances were set out in the body of the search warrant application, where only the following appeared:
'That the facts and circumstances which lead me to believe that there is probable cause that a crime was committed, and that the above described premises, place, residence and/or automobile should be searched are as follows:
'(8) This Information received from a reliable source.'
There can be no doubt reference by a search warrant applicant to 'a reliable source of information' cannot be substituted for a reviewable factual showing, and a finding of probable cause cannot stand if no record was before the issuing magistrate of the specific details supplied by the claimed reliable source. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; State v. Boer, 224 N.W.2d 217 (Iowa 1974); State v. Johnson, 203 N.W.2d 126, 127--128 (Iowa 1972); State v. Lynch, 197 N.W.2d 186, 191--192 (Iowa 1972); State v. Salazar, 174 N.W.2d 453, 455--456 (Iowa 1970); State v. Spier, 173 N.W.2d 854, 858--859 (Iowa 1970). Such a situation is not presented here, however, for despite the lack of any showing of underlying facts and circumstances in the information for search warrant itself, the magistrate had before him comparable evidence upon which to make a probable cause determination in the form of testimony given by Charles Handley.
The information for the search warrant laid before Judge McKinney was supported by the sworn testimony of Charles Handley, who appeared with Detective Johnston at the time the information was presented to Judge McKinney. Judge McKinney endorsed upon the warrant certain testimonial facts which he summarized in substantial compliance with his responsibility as an issuing magistrate under § 751.4, The Code. Such summarization is as follows:
'11--25--72
'12:00 P.M.
'The Court finds, probable cause and orders the issuance of the search warrant.
'/s/ John L. McKinney
'JUDGE'
The testimony so summarized amounted to a showing of underlying facts and circumstances by the source himself. Certainly such a factual showing before the magistrate was sufficient to establish the probability of criminal activity, to permit a reasonable conclusion difendants were in violation of Chapter 204, The Code. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct 584, 590, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, 645; State v. Jensen, 189 N.W.2d 919, 926 (Iowa 1971); State v. Oliveri, 261 Iowa 1140, 156 N.W.2d 688. The factual basis present in this case was therefore sufficient to justify the magistrate's determination probable cause for issuance of the search warrant existed.
II. Defendants contend alternatively that trial court erred in overruling their motion to suppress and in permitting into evidence items seized in a search conducted pursuant to the warrant because the magistrate in issuing the warrant failed to comply with § 751.4, The Code. Thus, they contend, the warrant was improperly issued and all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Conner
...of a motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of the State's case when the defendant later presents evidence, State v. Valde, 225 N.W.2d 313, 317 (Iowa 1975), error was preserved here only by the motion made at the conclusion of all the As shown in our discussion in Division I, we find......
-
State v. Birkestrand
...description of this informant as 'reliable' would not be sufficient if alone employed to establish probable cause. See State v. Valde, 225 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Iowa 1975). But here the tip lends credence to information given by a citizen informer, a Culligan Soft Water Company employee, Infra. ......
-
State v. Nelson
...See chapter 751, The Code. We have set out the underlying principles by which a search warrant must be tested in State v. Valde, 225 N.W.2d 313, 315--316 (Iowa 1975); State v. Drake, 224 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Iowa 1974), and State v. Spier, 173 N.W.2d 854, 857--860 (Iowa The question is not, as ......
-
State v. Rockhold
...overruled, need not be later renewed in order to preserve error, as here, no further evidence is introduced. See e.g., State v. Valde, 225 N.W.2d 313, 317 (Iowa 1975); State v. Dahlstrom, 224 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Iowa 1974). III. It is now equally well settled: 'Probable cause exists for issuan......