State v. Woodall
| Citation | 666 P.2d 364,100 Wn.2d 74 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 48980-7,48980-7 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Russell Edwin WOODALL, Rocky Wade Brantner, Patricia Erma Lenoir, Mary Theresa Charpentier, James Floyd Jackson, Petitioners. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Edward B. Shamek, Goldendale, for petitioners.
L. Eugene Hanson, Klickitat County Prosecutor, John Blonien, Deputy, Pros. Atty., Goldendale, for respondent.
Petitioners were convicted of possession of a controlled substance. 1 Their convictions were based solely on evidence seized under the authority of two search warrants. Petitioners appealed their convictions contending the affidavits given by the police officer in requesting the search warrants were insufficient in that they did not establish the credibility of the officer's informant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding the affidavits were adequate. State v. Woodall, 32 Wash.App. 407, 647 P.2d 1051 (1982). We reverse. Due to our disposition of this issue, we need not address the other issues raised by petitioners.
Deputy Golphenee of the Klickitat County Sheriff's Department filed two affidavits and complaints for search warrants. One was for a residence on River Front Street in Klickitat, Washington. The affidavit described the house and stated that the officer believed it to belong to the Shifter's Motorcycle Club. The other affidavit concerned a residence at 505 5th Street. Deputy Golphenee averred in both affidavits that his belief that marijuana would be found in the two houses was based upon the following:
A reliable informant who has proven to be reliable in the past has given information to Duane Golphenee that he/she has been in the house within the last twelve hours and has personally observed marijuana being used in the house. The informant is familiar with the appearance of marijuana.
A district court judge issued two search warrants based on these averments. Officer Golphenee did not supply any other information to the judge. Officers executed both search warrants. Petitioners Brantner, Jackson and Charpentier were arrested at the house on River Front Street after the search revealed a quantity of marijuana. Petitioners Woodall and Lenoir were arrested at the 5th Street house where the officers also found marijuana.
The basic test for probable cause necessary for a judicial officer to issue a search warrant based on information obtained from an informant was established in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). Those requirements are: first, the affiant must set forth the underlying circumstances necessary to permit the magistrate issuing the warrant to independently determine that the informant had a factual basis for his allegations; and, second, the affiant must present sufficient facts so the magistrate may determine the credibility or the reliability of the informant. The parties concede that the first prong of the Aguilar/Spinelli test was satisfied. It is this second, "veracity", prong which is at issue in this case.
We recognized in State v. Fisher, 96 Wash.2d 962, 965, 639 P.2d 743 (1982) that
To meet the Aguilar/Spinelli test the credibility of the informant must be demonstrated. The mere statement that an informant is credible is not sufficient (Aguilar v. Texas, supra ), whereas it is almost universally held to be sufficient if information has been given which has led to arrests and convictions. 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.3, at 509 (1978); see also McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 18 L.Ed.2d 62, 87 S.Ct. 1056 (1967); State v. Partin, [88 Wn.2d 899, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977) ].
This case lies somewhere between these two positions.
This case, like Fisher, lies somewhere between the affidavit in Aguilar and affidavits stating that information has been given in the past leading to arrests. The affidavit in the instant case is, however, unlike the affidavit at issue in Fisher in a very important respect. The affidavit in the instant case presents no underlying facts by which the judicial officer issuing the warrant could independently determine the informant's reliability. The affidavits merely state that the informant is "[a] reliable informant who has proven to be reliable in the past". "Reliable" as used in both instances is a mere conclusion of the affiant which could mean a number of things. There are no facts given to support this conclusion. In contrast, the affidavit in Fisher stated facts, although concededly brief. In Fisher we held 96 Wash.2d at page 965, 639 P.2d 743:
Affiant stated that the informant had given him information proven to be true and correct in the past. While this is more than drawing the conclusion that the informant is credible and admittedly less than stating the facts as to why the past information has proven to be "true and correct", it still is a factual statement--not a conclusion of the affiant. We hold in this case that it is enough to enable a neutral magistrate to determine if the informant is credible.
There was some indication at trial that the informant may have had a "track record" with another sheriff's department. If true, the affiant could have included such facts in the affidavits to support his conclusion of the informant's reliability. See Keller v. State, 543 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1975). This was not done, however, nor was any other indicia of reliability related. Cf. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971); State v. Lair, 95 Wash. 706, 630 P.2d 427 (1981) ().
We are mindful of the State's concern that it not be required to supply to the magistrate such facts that could reveal the informant's identity thus endangering the informant or rendering him useless in future investigations. However, the minimum requirements of Aguilar/Spinelli, as applied in Fisher and other cases, must be complied with in order to maintain the integrity of search warrants. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cardenas
...20 Wash.App. 648, 581 P.2d 154 (1978); State v. Woodall 32 Wash.App. 407, 647 P.2d 1051 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, 100 Wash.2d 74, 666 P.2d 364 (1983). Here the officers reasonably believed that the suspects were armed. They were aware that the suspects had used physical force against ......
-
State v. Lund
...to the Centralia police department leading to several arrests. State v. Wolken, 103 Wash.2d 823, 700 P.2d 319 (1985), State v. Woodall, 100 Wash.2d 74, 666 P.2d 364 (1983). Thus, the police were entitled to use the information supplied by Hoffman's informant to corroborate other information......
-
State v. Paradiso, 6533-2-III
...of Aguilar-Spinelli are met. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); State v. Woodall, 100 Wash.2d 74, 78, 666 P.2d 364 (1983); Fisher, 96 Wash.2d at 965, 639 P.2d 743; State v. Partin, 88 Wash.2d 899, 904, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). Doubts should be resolv......
-
State v. Sackett, No. 31971-3-II (WA 10/18/2005)
...information on how they were conducted was given (fact). Fisher, 96 Wn.2d at 966 (emphasis added). In contrast, in State v. Woodall, 100 Wn.2d 74, 76, 666 P.2d 364 (1983), the court The affidavit in the instant case presents no underlying facts by which the judicial officer issuing the warr......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...587-602. Washington courts, however, require a showing of reliability for citizen-informants. See State v. Woodall, 100 Wash. 2d 74, 77, 666 P.2d 364, 366 (1983); State v. Fisher, 96 Wash. 2d 962, 965, 639 P.2d 743, 745, cert, denied, 457 U.S. 1137, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1355, 102 S. Ct. 2967 (1982)......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...§ 3.4(a). Washington courts, however, require a showing of reliability for citizen-informants. See State v. Woodall, 100 Wash. 2d 74, 77, 666 P.2d 364, 366 (1983); State v. Fisher, 96 Wash. 2d 962, 965, 639 P.2d 743, 745, cert, denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982). The requisite showing of reliabil......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
...citizen informants. State v. Ibarra, 61 Wash. App. 695, 698-99, 812 P.2d 114, 117 (1991); see also State v. Woodall, 100 Wash. 2d 74, 77, 666 P.2d 364, 366 (1983); State v. Fisher, 96 Wash. 2d 962, 965, 639 P.2d 743, 745 (1982). However, the burden for establishing an identified citizen inf......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...simply rubber-stamp warrants. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 111, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 1512, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723, 727 (1964); State v. Woodall, 100 Wn.2d 74, 77, 666 P.2d 364, 366 (1983) (en 3.2(b) Neutrality A magistrate who is capable of determining probable cause may nevertheless be disqualifie......