Opinion
No. 1-699 / 01-194.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, STEPHEN P. CARROLL, Judge.
The State was granted discretionary review to challenge the district court's grant of the defendants' motions to suppress. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Denise A. Timmins, Assistant Attorney General, and Kasey E. Wadding, County Attorney, for appellant.
DeDra Schroeder of Schroeder Law Office, Charles City, for appellee Droste.
Roger L. Sutton of Sutton Law Office, Charles City, for appellee Averhoff.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
The State was granted discretionary review to challenge the district court's grant of defendants' motion to suppress. We reverse and remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings . Defendants Charles Averhoff and Cole Droste's home had been under surveillance for drug activity. On July 21, 2000, a man stopped at defendants' home for approximately seven minutes. Police stopped the man shortly after he left the home and a search of his vehicle discovered the presence of marijuana. Following the execution of a search warrant at defendants' home, the defendants were charged with multiple drug offenses.
The defendants filed motions to suppress. The district court found the supporting affidavit failed to specify the exact times of the surveillance operations, and, as a result, it assumed the surveillance referenced in the affidavit occurred on the most remote date mentioned therein. The district court granted the motions to suppress, finding the supporting affidavit lacked the specificity necessary to support a finding of probable cause and that a sufficient nexus did not exist between the alleged criminal activity and the defendants' home.
The State filed an application for discretionary review, which was granted. It argues the district court was hypertechnical in requiring excessively detailed information about the prior surveillance of the defendants' home. The State contends it is reasonable to infer from the affidavit that the prior surveillance was part of a continuous investigation. The State contends the district court's focus should have been on the drug trafficking activity which was allegedly occurring at the defendants' residence, and it argues the district court's ruling was improperly influenced by an unpublished Iowa Court of Appeals' opinion involving similar facts.
II. Scope of Review . Our review of the conclusion a district court reaches on a motion to suppress concerning Fourth Amendment issues is de novo. State v. Gillespie, 619 N.W.2d 345, 350 (Iowa 2000). We give deference to the district court's factual findings, but are not bound by them. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001).
III. Motion to Suppress . The test for determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause is"whether a reasonable person would believe a crime was committed on the premises or that evidence of a crime could be located there." State v. Wells, 629 N.W.2d 346, 355 (Iowa 2001) (citation omitted). The information presented in the application for the search is far less demanding than the information necessary to sustain a conviction. Id. The affidavit for probable cause is interpreted with common sense, rather than in a hypertechnical manner. State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 363-64 (Iowa 1997). We draw all reasonable inferences to support the judge's finding of probable cause. Id. at 364. "Close cases are decided in favor of upholding the validity of the warrant." Id. We also recognize our duty to give deference to the issuing magistrate's finding of probable cause. State v. Weir, 414 N.W.2d 327, 330 (Iowa 1987).
Upon de novo review, we find probable cause existed to issue the warrant. In March 2000, the Waverly Police Department began an open investigation of the residence and its occupants. During the ongoing investigation, Officer Curtis Deberg conducted surveillance of the residence and over several hours witnessed individuals with drug convictions and suspected drug users frequent the home. These individuals were at the home for a period of time lasting from two to ten minutes, behavior that is consistent with illegal drug trafficking. On July 21, 2000, Officer Deberg was again conducting surveillance of the residence when he observed a suspected drug user who frequented the residence visit the home for seven minutes. Upon giving consent to search his vehicle as part of a traffic stop after leaving the home, one quarter ounce of marijuana was found under the driver's seat. From these facts, it is reasonable to infer that the marijuana was purchased at the defendants' home and that a search of the home would yield evidence of drug trafficking.
IV. Unpublished Decisions . The State also argues the district court erred in relying on an unpublished decision of our court. We note that Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 14(e) was recently amended to allow the citation of unpublished decisions. Because we reverse the district court's ruling on other grounds, we need not address this argument.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.