Williams v. State, 32A01-8805-CR-155
| Decision Date | 22 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 32A01-8805-CR-155,32A01-8805-CR-155 |
| Parties | Mark R. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Cindy L. Kenworthy, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lisa Anne McCoy, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant, Mark R. Williams (Williams), appeals from his conviction in the Hendricks Circuit Court for burglary, a Class C felony under IND.CODE 35-43-2-1.
We affirm.
On May 27, 1987, a search warrant was issued by Marion Municipal Court Judge Steven Frank upon the affidavit of Detective Michael Nelson (Nelson) of the Hendricks County Sheriff's Department for the seizure of controlled substances at 3070 Aragon Woods Drive in Indianapolis, Indiana. The search warrant was served by Nelson and Detective Clark Fine (Fine) at approximately 8:30 a.m. on May 28, 1987. Williams, William D. Cook (Cook), and Jennifer Bates were present during the search and advised of their rights. The search turned up a 500 mg. Red Placidyl tablet and a bottle of Dilaudid tablets. These drugs were identical to those taken in the burglary of the Toler Pharmacy in Avon, Indiana on May 8, 1987.
While the search was being conducted, Cook approached Nelson to make a statement. Cook was taken to the police station where, after being advised of his rights, he made a written statement implicating Williams in the Toler Pharmacy burglary. Shortly thereafter Williams was placed under arrest and transported to the police station where he was given a copy of Cook's statement. Fine then took a statement from him at approximately 12:55 p.m. In the statement Williams admitted his participation in the burglary. Williams ultimately was charged and found guilty after a jury trial from which he has perfected this appeal.
Williams presents two issues on appeal which are restated as follows:
I. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to exclude items seized and statements taken pursuant to the search warrant.
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Williams's motion to obtain information regarding the identity of the confidential informant.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Williams contends the trial court erred in not excluding items seized and his statement taken pursuant to the search warrant because the warrant was not supported by probable cause. Specifically, Williams argues that the search warrant was based upon an affidavit which did not provide sufficient information from which the judge could determine that probable cause existed to search the residence.
A search warrant must strictly comply with the constitutional and statutory law permitting a search and seizure. Kinnaird v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 506, 242 N.E.2d 500; Rohlfing v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 619, 88 N.E.2d 148. Article I, Sec. 11 of the Indiana Constitution reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution contains nearly identical language. IND.CODE 35-33-5-2(a) provides that no warrant for search on arrest shall be issued until there is filed with a judge an affidavit:
particularly describing the house or place to be searched and the things to be searched for, or particularly describing the person to be arrested, and alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto, and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe such things as are to be searched for are there concealed, or that the person to be arrested committed the offense and, setting forth the facts then in knowledge of the affiant or information based on hearsay, constituting the probable cause. When based on hearsay, the affidavit must either:
(1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or
(2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay.
These provisions insure that all citizens may be secure from unwarranted invasions of their persons or homes.
Where an affidavit is based upon an informant's tip the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 stated:
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2332. The Court in Gates further stated that the duty of the reviewing court is not to perform de novo review, but to determine whether the affidavit provided a substantial basis of fact from which the magistrate could conclude that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Id. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331. Therefore, our review is limited to an examination of the same information that was before the judge when the warrant was issued. Stabenow v. State (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 197; Ruth v. State (1984), Ind.App., 462 N.E.2d 269; trans. denied; Flaherty v. State (1982), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 340. trans. denied.
In this case the only information presented to the judge was that contained in the affidavit. Therefore, there must be sufficient factual information on the face of the affidavit from which a neutral and detached magistrate or judge could have reasonably concluded that probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant. Layman v. State (1980), Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 259, trans. denied.
The affidavit stated:
Detectives Clark Fine and Mike Nelson of the Hendricks Co. Sheriff Department, swears that he believes [sic] and has Probable Cause to believe that certain property, hereinafter described, is concealed in the following described residence, to-wit: 3070 Aragon Woods Drive located in Aragon Woods Apartment Complex, Section # 5, the residence will be described as a single story wood frame, light brown with a brown trim with the numerals 3070 on right of the front door located at Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana.
The property is described as follows: (See attached sheet containing a list of assorted controlled substances by the words "Clark Fine" at the top and bottom which constitutes unlawfully obtained property, contraband, evidence of an offense.)
In support of your affiant's assertion of Probable Cause, your affiant would show the court that he has received the following facts from a reliable and confidential informant which facts the informant stated to be within the informant's personal knowledge, to-wit: that the confidential informant was told by William D. Cook that he burglarized the Toler's Pharmacy in Avon, Hendricks Co. Indiana, on or about May 12, 1987.
The informant stated that he gained knowledge of these facts by: conversations with William D. Cooks. [sic]
Your affiant believes and has Probable Cause to believe that the informant is reliable, based upon the following facts within your affiant's personal knowledge, to-wit: the informant has provided numerous leads leading to the arrest of individuals along with seizures of stolen property in other cases.
Therefore, your affiant respectfully requests the court to issue a SEARCH WARRANT directing the search for and the seizure of the above-described property.
Record at 284. The affidavit was signed by Nelson.
In examining the affidavit we note that in Layman the court discussed the analysis utilized to review a judge's determination of probable cause for a search warrant as follows:
While the quantity and nature of the constituent elements necessary to establish probable cause are inextricably related to each given set of facts, there are two basic questions pertinent to the determination of probable cause for a search under any set of facts: (1) whether the particular items sought to be seized are sufficiently connected with criminal activity and (2) whether the items are to be found in a particular place.
407 N.E.2d at 263. See also Carnes v. State (1985), Ind.App., 480 N.E.2d 581, trans. denied; IND.CODE 35-33-5-2(a).
In this case the affidavit was deficient in that it neither set forth facts within Fine's knowledge nor contained information based on hearsay which would constitute probable cause. There was no statement concerning how the informant knew the listed items were at the named residence. Nevertheless, testimony received at the suppression hearing disclosed that the informant told Fine he had heard Cook admit to the burglary and had seen some of the listed items at the residence. Therefore, this deficiency is one of form in filling out the affidavit, not of actual information.
Clearly, the affidavit adequately provided the address of the place to be searched. The fact that the residence to be searched was located at Aragon Woods Court and not Aragon Woods Drive is not material. Such error is not critical for the officers could reasonably ascertain the residence intended. Conn v. State (1986), Ind.App., 496 N.E.2d 604, trans. denied.
In addition to the shortcomings described above, there is the potential problem of stale information. The affidavit was subscribed and sworn to on May 27, 1987, for a burglary which occurred on May 8, 1987. It is not clear from the affidavit when the informant obtained his information. The general rule is that stale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Com.
...look to the totality of the circumstances, including what the affiant knew, but did not include in his affidavit."); Williams v. State, 528 N.E.2d 496, 500 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (looking to the totality of the circumstances when applying the good-faith exception to determine reliability of an i......
-
Davis v. State, 45A03-0808-CR-407.
...known to the law enforcement organization as a whole." Rios v. State, 762 N.E.2d 153, 163 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (quoting Williams v. State, 528 N.E.2d 496, 500 (Ind.Ct.App.1988), trans. denied). As the original search of the curtilage was valid, his observations can be used to establish probabl......
-
Taylor v. State
...A search warrant must strictly comply with the constitutional and statutory law permitting a search and seizure. Williams v. State (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 496, 497, trans. denied. IC 35-33-5-2(a) provides no warrant for search or arrest shall be issued until there is filed with a judge an ......
-
Utley v. State
...cause, their individual knowledge can be imputed to the officer signing the affidavit in support of the search warrant. Williams v. State (1988), Ind.App., 528 N.E.2d 496. Appellant's argument fails here because other officers to whom a part of the investigation was delegated did take the d......