Opinion
No. 5-758 / 05-0052
Filed February 1, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Richard G. Blane, II, Judge.
The State appeals the district court's grant of Workman's motion to suppress arguing the district court applied the wrong version of Iowa Code section 808.3. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Richard Bartolomei, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Karen Doland and Mary Tabor, Assistant Attorneys General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Daniel Voogt, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
The State appeals the district court's ruling granting Workman's motion to suppress evidence seized during execution of a search warrant at his residence.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On March 8, 2004, a Polk County magistrate issued a warrant authorizing the search of Workman's person, his residence, garage, and vehicles. The warrant was issued based on the application filed by Des Moines Police Officer Don Simpson. In an attachment to the search warrant application Simpson included the following information concerning his investigative findings.
On March 8, 2004, the Des Moines Police Department received a call from the centralized police dispatch center. The caller requested that Detective Simpson return a call to the person who contacted the dispatch center. The caller only left a first name and phone number. Detective Simpson called the number and the caller informed him that Alvin Workman was involved in selling "pounds" of "methamphetamine ice" from his residence on University Avenue in Clive. The caller said he had seen the "methamphetamine ice" on the previous day in the bedroom of Workman's residence. The caller maintained he was familiar with "methamphetamine ice" because the caller had used it in the past. The caller was motivated to call because he or she was concerned for the safety of the young girls living at Workman's residence as Workman may be manufacturing methamphetamine (meth). The caller said people frequently came and left Workman's residence.
In 2003, while Detective Simpson worked with the Mid Iowa Narcotics Enforcement Task Force, he learned that Workman went by the street name "Dog." Simpson knew that a case was developed within the task force in July of 2003. During this investigation, an individual named Nicole Poznanski saw Workman sell meth to two people. Workman was with a man named "Jim"; they entered Workman's bedroom in his home on University Avenue in Clive; and when Jim came out of the bedroom, he had a bag. Poznanski later heard Workman claim that Jim had $12,000 of Workman's money and saw Workman with jars containing a crystallized substance that she believed was meth.
Detective Simpson also knew that in July 2003 officers with the task force arrested Steven Buell on drug charges. Buell informed the officers that he got the meth from a person named "Dog." Buell had a phone number for "Dog" in his address book which was traced to Workman's University Avenue residence. Workman's residence was searched during the July 2003 investigation; 3.6 grams of meth, cash, scales and packaging material were found.
In November 2003, the task force was informed by confidential informant 550 (CI 550) that Workman had between one-half pound and one pound of meth "ice" in his apartment. CI 550 also informed the task force that he witnessed Workman manufacture meth in his bathroom.
In December 2003, a phone call between confidential informant 509 (CI 509) and Workman was recorded wherein CI 509 discussed purchasing a large quantity of meth from Workman, possibly a ten-pound meth load. On January 8, 2004, another phone call between the two individuals was recorded during which Workman arranged to sell the informant one pound of meth. The application also included "Informant Attachment B" which stated that Detective Simpson relied on information received from Officers Ballard, O'Brien, and Glen with the Mid Iowa Narcotic Enforcement Task Force and from Steven Buell, Nicole Poznanski, CI 509, CI 550, and a concerned citizen.
Based on the evidence seized during execution of the March 8, 2004, search warrant, Workman was charged with possession of meth in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7) (2003); failure to affix a tax stamp in violation of section 453B.12; and possession of marijuana in violation of section 124.401(5). Workman was also charged with being a second offender pursuant to section 124.411.
On August 16, 2004, Workman filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. Workman's motion alleged that Simpson's search warrant application contained "material falsehoods and omissions." Specifically, Workman cited Simpson's deposition testimony acknowledging that the person who called him on March 8, 2004, was "really an unidentified, anonymous caller rather than an identified, concerned citizen who had disclosed their identity." Workman also alleged that: "Excluding the false statements and omissions, there is insufficient probable cause to justify issuance of the warrant . . . because all of the other material set forth in the attachment `A' in support of the application were clearly stale. . . ."
In its ruling, the trial court determined that Iowa Code section 808.3 required the magistrate issuing the warrant to make specific findings concerning the credibility of an informant or the information provided by the informant. The court ultimately concluded that
the provisions of Iowa Code section 808.3 were not met, and that unless the search warrant can stand on the remaining information provided to the warrant issuing magistrate after the "concerned citizen" information has been redacted, the warrant must fail and the Defendant's Motion to Suppress granted.
In reviewing Simpson's application for a search warrant without the redacted material, the court found that "the other information relates to earlier investigations involving Workman in 2003. This information would be too stale to merit issuance of a search warrant on the State's information alone." Based on these findings and conclusions, the trial court granted Workman's motion to suppress. The court did not address Workman's claims concerning Simpson's allegedly false statements or omissions from the search warrant application.
The supreme court granted the State's request for discretionary review of the trial court's ruling. On appeal, the State raises the following issue:
Whether the district court erred in granting Workman's motion to suppress based on an outdated statutory requirement in Iowa Code section 808.3?II. Standard of Review
Our review of a constitutional question is de novo. State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 1997). However, challenges to the statutory sufficiency of a search warrant are reviewed for correction for errors at law. State v. Beckett, 532 N.W.2d 751, 753 (Iowa 1995).
III. The Merits.
Since its amendment in 1998, Iowa Code section 808.3 (2003) states, in pertinent part:
See 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 117, § 1.
[I]f the grounds for issuance are supplied by an informant, the magistrate shall identify only the peace officer to whom the information was given. The application or sworn testimony supplied in support of the application must establish the credibility of the informant or the credibility of the information given by the informant. The magistrate may in the magistrate's discretion require that a witness upon whom the applicant relies for information appear personally and be examined concerning the information.
By requiring the magistrate to make specific findings concerning informant credibility, the trial court expressly relied on the pre-amended version of section 808.3, requiring such findings. See Iowa Code § 808.3 (1997). Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, we must reverse and remand to allow the district court to consider Workman's motion to suppress in light of the legal standard included in the current version of section 808.3. State v. Robinson, 506 N.W.2d 769, 762 (Iowa 1993) (trial court's reliance on incorrect legal standard requires remand to apply correct legal standard). The trial court is also instructed to address Workman's claim alleging false statements or omissions in the search warrant application.
The ruling of the trial court granting Workman's motion to suppress is therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion.