Summary
In Ward, the affidavit related that information provided by the informant had proven reliable on "at least 2 recent past occasions which resulted in narcotics arrests and seizures."
Summary of this case from People v. HarrisOpinion
No. 25842
Decided April 16, 1973.
Interlocutory appeal by district attorney from a ruling of the district court granting defendants' motion to suppress evidence.
Ruling Reversed
1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES — Aguilar-Spinelli Test — Probable Cause — Unidentified Informant — First "Prong." The first "prong" of the Aguilar-Spinelli test for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on the information provided by an unidentified informant is that the affidavit in support of the warrant must allege facts from which issuing magistrate can independently determine whether there is probable cause to believe that illegal activity is being carried on in place to be searched.
2. Aguilar-Spinelli Test — First "Prong" — Informant — Personal Observation — Affidavit — Magistrate — Determination — Probable Cause. Personal observation by unidentified informant of objects of search within place to be searched satisfies first "prong" of Aguilar-Spinelli test, namely, that affidavit allege facts from which issuing magistrate can independently determine whether there is probable cause to believe that illegal activity is being carried on in place to be searched.
3. DRUGS AND DRUGGISTS — Two Apartments — Statement — Lack — Plain Meaning — Warrants — Both — Negative. Statement in affidavit for search warrant — that informant was present in two apartments in basement of same building and observed "a quantity of narcotics marijuana in plastic baggies" — lacked "plain meaning" that informant had seen marijuana in both apartments; and, as such, would not support issuance of search warrants for both apartments on that ground.
4. Affidavit — Two Addresses — Single Building — Open Doors — Lack of Numbers — Common Occupancy — Opportunity to Refute. Where affidavit stated that informant said that the two addresses are located in basement of single building; that all of the doors in basement were open; that there were no numbers or letters on the doors; and that the parties named in the affidavit are "living and sleeping in each of the apartments," held, common occupancy would satisfy the first "prong" of the Aguilar-Spinelli test but, on the assumption that "common occupancy" argument was not made to trial court at suppression hearing, fairness to defendants requires that they be given an opportunity to introduce refuting evidence on the subject.
5. Affidavit — Statement — Information — Arrests and Seizures — Sufficient — Reliability — Second Prong — Aguilar-Spinelli. Where statement in search warrant affidavit did indicate that previous information supplied by unidentified informant had led to narcotics arrests and seizures, held, that statement, as such, was sufficient to establish the reliability of the informant and thereby satisfy the second prong of Aguilar-Spinelli test.
Interlocutory Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Donald N. Pacheco, Judge.
Jarvis W. Seccombe, District Attorney, Dale Tooley, District Attorney, Frederic B. Rodgers, Deputy, Brooke Wunnicke, Deputy, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy, Stephen C. Rench, Deputy, for defendants-appellees.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the district attorney pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 (as amended on April 1, 1971), from a ruling of the district court granting the defendants' motion to suppress evidence.
On the basis of a single affidavit relating information provided in large part by an unidentified informant, separate search warrants were issued for 1377 Ogden Street, Apartment #B and 930 E. 14th Avenue. Both addresses are located in the basement of the same building. Following execution of the warrants, the three defendants were charged with possession of marijuana and conspiracy to possess marijuana.
The defendants moved to suppress evidence seized during the search conducted pursuant to the warrants on the ground that the affidavit in support of the warrants failed to inform the magistrate as to the specific apartment in which the informant had seen marijuana. The only statement in the affidavit relating specific information as to when and where the informant had seen marijuana read as follows:
"On 10-3-72 my informant was present inside the residence 1377 Ogden st. apartment #B and 930 E. 14th ave. and did observe (sic) a quantity of narcotics marijuana in plastic baggies."
The district court ruled that the evidence should be suppressed, apparently on the ground that the above-quoted statement did not sufficiently identify the specific apartment in which the informant had seen marijuana. We reverse.
I.
[1,2] The first "prong" of the Aguilar-Spinelli test for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information provided by an unidentified informant is that the affidavit in support of the warrant must allege facts from which the issuing magistrate can independently determine whether there is probable cause to believe that illegal activity is being carried on in the place to be searched. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). Personal observation by an informant of the objects of the search within the place to be searched satisfies the first prong of the test. People v. Peschong, 181 Colo. 29, 506 P.2d 1232; People v. Clark, 175 Colo. 446, 488 P.2d 565 (1971); and People v. MacDonald, 173 Colo. 470, 480 P.2d 555 (1971).
The People argue that the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test was satisfied by the above-quoted sentence in the affidavit: (1) because the plain meaning of the sentence is that the informant personally saw marijuana in both apartments; or (2) because the two apartments were in reality one commonly occupied residence.
[3] We cannot agree with the People that the "plain meaning" of the sentence is that the informant saw marijuana in both apartments. The lack of clarity in the meaning of the sentence was pointed out by the district court which stated that "the informant advised the officers that he was in the residences and somewhere within them, one of the two or both, or one or the other, I'm not sure . . . . " In support of their "plain meaning" argument, the People cite People v. Clark, 175 Colo. 446, 488 P.2d 565 (1971) and People v. MacDonald, 173 Colo. 470, 480 P.2d 555 (1971). Neither case is factually similar to this case. In both People v. Clark, supra, and People v. MacDonald, supra, only one location was involved and there was no question as to the specific location where the informant saw the drugs.
II.
[4] We do agree with the People that the above-quoted sentence in the affidavit would satisfy the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test if the two addresses were, in reality, one commonly occupied residence. Cf. People v. Alarid, 174 Colo. 289, 483 P.2d 1331 (1971). The district court made no finding in this regard and it is not clear whether this argument was even made to the court.
We hold that the affidavit does show a common occupancy. The affidavit stated that the informant said that the two addresses are located in the basement of a single building; that all of the doors in the basement were open; that there were no numbers or letters on the doors; and that the parties named in the affidavit are "living and sleeping in each of the apartments." Officers who had previously executed a warrant at 1377 Ogden Street, Apartment #B, related that there were no numbers or letters on the doors in the basement and that there were no locks on the doors.
On the assumption that the "common occupancy" argument was not made to the trial court at the suppression hearing, we believe that fairness to the defendants requires that they be given an opportunity to introduce refuting evidence on the subject. If the district court finds that the premises were in reality a single commonly occupied residence, then it must deny the defendants' motion to suppress. Otherwise, the granting of the motion should stand.
III.
[5] The defendants here argue that, even if the affidavit does satisfy the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the second prong was not satisfied — i.e., the affidavit failed to set forth sufficient facts to allow the magistrate to determine independently whether the informant was credible or his information reliable. People v. Peschong, supra. We disagree.
The affidavit included a statement by the affiant police officer that information provided by the informant had proven reliable on "at least 2 recent past occasions which resulted in narcotics arrest and seizures . . . . " In People v. Peschong, supra, we held that the reliability of the unidentified informant had not been established by, among other things, a statement in the affidavit that the "informant has given reliable information on at least 3 prior occasions." In Peschong, we stated that the affidavit might have indicated the nature of the information previously given by the informant and whether such information led to arrests or convictions or otherwise proved to be true. In this case, the affidavit did indicate that previous information supplied by the informant had led to narcotics arrests and seizures. We view the statement in this affidavit to be sufficient to establish the reliability of the informant. People v. Peppers, 172 Colo. 556, 475 P.2d 337 (1970); and People v. Schmidt, 172 Colo. 285, 473 P.2d 698 (1970).
The ruling is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consonant with the views expressed herein.
MR. JUSTICE DAY, MR. JUSTICE LEE and MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON dissent.