United States v. Speaks
Decision Date | 17 November 1986 |
Docket Number | No. CR-86-273 to CR-86-277-1 and CR-86-279-1.,CR-86-273 to CR-86-277-1 and CR-86-279-1. |
Citation | 649 F. Supp. 1065 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jerry K. SPEAKS, Eugene H. Thomason: Ronald T. Harstad; Kathleen R. Hudson; Cathryn M. Olsowski; Lenore A. Lee, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
James B. Crum, Asst. U.S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff.
Peter Offenbecher, Daniel J. Keane, Carl Diana, Richard B. Kayne, Philip Wetzel, Gene E. Hamilton, Spokane, Wash., for defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
On October 30, 1986, the court held a hearing on defendants' motion to suppress evidence. Plaintiff was represented by Assistant United States Attorney James B. Crum. Defendant Jerry K. Speaks appeared personally and through his attorney Peter Offenbecher. Defendant Eugene H. Thomason was present and represented by Daniel J. Keane. Carl Diana appeared on behalf of defendant Ronald T. Harstad. Defendant Kathleen R. Hudson appeared in person and was represented by Richard B. Kayne. Philip Wetzel appeared on behalf of defendant Cathryn M. Olsowski, and defendant Lenore A. Lee was represented by Gene E. Hamilton.
Defendants seek to suppress evidence of a methamphetamine laboratory which was seized from a trailer motel room. Pursuant to a warrant issued by a lay state court judge, local enforcement officers conducted the search leading to the seizure. As grounds for the challenge, defendants assert that the affidavit in support of the warrant contained statements made falsely or with reckless disregard for the truth and that it failed to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Defendants also contend that the officers failed to comply with the knock and announce requirements for executing a search warrant. Defendants base their challenge on both the state and federal constitutions.
It is undisputed that the warrant in question was obtained from a state court judge solely at the behest of state officials. Although there was testimony at the hearing that the local officers originally intended to wait for the arrival of federal agents before executing the warrant, they in fact conducted the search on their own in response to indications that the individuals in the trailer might be leaving. Some telephone contact between a local police officer and a representative of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency did occur during surveillance prior to obtaining the warrant. Still this court finds that, as a practical matter, there was no federal participation in this operation but rather it was undertaken solely pursuant to state authority. The facts of this case thus present an issue admittedly unresolved in this circuit, that is whether the court must analyze a motion to suppress evidence seized by state officials without any federal intervention under the state, in addition to the federal, constitution.
In Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960), the Court did away with the "silver platter doctrine" by holding that evidence seized by state officials in violation of the federal constitution could not be used in a federal prosecution. The present inquiry, however, is not whether this court must evaluate evidence seized by state officers in terms of the Fourth Amendment, but whether the court must also determine if it was obtained in violation of the state constitution.
The circuit has expressed a similar view in previous cases. United States v. Cordova, 650 F.2d 189, 1980 (9th Cir.1981) (); United States v. Orozco, 590 F.2d 789, 792 n. 11 (9th Cir.1979) (); United States v. Fisch, 474 F.2d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.1973) ( ) In light of this guidance from the circuit and the absence of any controlling authority, this court concludes it must analyze the sufficiency of this affidavit under both state and federal law.
Because the analysis mandated under Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington constitution is more demanding than the federal standard, the court will begin its analysis with the Washington constitution.1 Although the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), rejected the traditional Aguilar-Spinelli analysis in favor of a totality of the circumstances standard, the Washington Supreme Court subsequently declared that the former two-prong test would still be applied to affidavits challenged under the state constitution. State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432, 437, 688 P.2d 136 (1984). To satisfy the initial "basis of the knowledge" prong "the officer's affidavit must set forth some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant drew his conclusion so that a magistrate can independently evaluate the reliability of the manner in which the informant acquired his information...." Id. at 435, 688 P.2d 136. The "veracity" determination requires that "the affidavit must set forth some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was credible or his information reliable." Id. In order to uphold a search warrant under Washington law, the court must find that the affidavit satisfied both aspects of this standard. Id. at 437, 688 P.2d 136.
The relevant portion of the affidavit in this action provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. ONE PARCEL OF R. PROP. IN WOONSOCKET, RI, Civ. A. No. 87-0203 P.
...(D.C.Col.1985) (same). Other courts, however, have taken the position that state law should be consulted. See United States v. Speaks, 649 F.Supp. 1065, 1067 (E.D.Wash. 1986) (federal court must analyze motion to suppress evidence seized by state officials without federal intervention under......
-
Jordan v. Wilson
... ... John WILSON, etc., et al., Defendants ... Civ. A. No. 75-19-N ... United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, N.D ... November 17, 1986 ... Order and Injunction ... ...
-
State v. Downey
...other grounds, 468 U.S. 1206, 104 S.Ct. 3575, 82 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984), rev'd on other grounds, 795 F.2d 1487 (1986), United States v. Speaks, 649 F.Supp. 1065 (E.D.Wash.1986), and United States v. Impink, 728 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir.1984). We reject Downey's argument as these cases do not stand fo......
-
US v. Brady
...must be weighed under the stricter Aguilar-Spinelli test, rather than the totality of the circumstances test. In United States v. Speaks, 649 F.Supp. 1065, 1066 (E.D.WA 1986), this court held that, when a warrant is issued by a state court judge at the request of state officials, and where ......