Summary
In Coy, the affidavit stated that one defendant had arrived at the airport from Houston, Texas, which is a documented site for distribution of narcotics; further, defendant appeared “quite confused” when he arrived and then made a phone call which the police officer overheard in part.
Summary of this case from State v. FrugeOpinion
No. 94-K-329.
November 17, 1994.
APPEAL FROM TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE ALVIN OSER, J.
John M. Mamoulides, Dist. Atty., Terry Boudreaux, Leigh Anne Wall, Asst. Dist. Attys., Gretna, for plaintiff-relator.
Roger W. Jordan, Jr., New Orleans, John E. Benz, Gretna, for defendant-respondent.
Before GAUDIN and GOTHARD, JJ., and JOHN C. BOUTALL, J. Pro Tem.
This case concerns the validity of a police affidavit which caused two search warrants to issue. The trial judge found no probable cause and suppressed seized evidence. On appeal to this Court, the district court judgment was reversed. The three defendants then sought supervisory relief from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which remanded to this Court for briefing, oral arguments and an opinion, 640 So.2d 1327, 640 So.2d 1328.
On reconsideration, we remain of the opinion that the affidavit contained sufficient cause for issuance of the warrants; accordingly, the judgment granting the motion to suppress is set aside and we again remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
The two-page affidavit, signed on December 13, 1993, is attached to and made part of this opinion.
Defendants argue that this affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render its existence entirely unreasonable. This and three other instances when search warrants must be declared invalid are listed in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 at page 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405 at pages 3420-21, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).
The affidavit here, however, did give the magistrate a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, considering the totality of stated circumstances discussed in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), rehearing denied at 463 U.S. 1237, 104 S.Ct. 33, 77 L.Ed.2d 1453 (1983). One of the defendants, Guadalupe Coy, identified as a Spanish male, had arrived from Houston, Texas, which is close to Mexico and is a known documented site for distribution of narcotics. Coy appeared "quite confused" and then made a telephone call, which a police officer overheard in part. This eventually led police to Room 156 at the Travel Lodge, where further conversations with all three defendants took place. The defendants gave seriously conflicting statements which are spelled out in the affidavit. A criminal history check showed that two of the three defendants had criminal backgrounds involving illegal drugs.
Everything the police did in this case was legal and in apparent good faith. When advised by defendants that permission to search was being withdrawn, the officers immediately stopped and sought search warrants. These officers were not dishonest or reckless but rather conducted a fair, reasonable investigation from the time of the overheard telephone conversation at the airport to the suspicious conduct and conflicting statements at the motel. The affidavit did reasonably indicate that a crime was being committed and that contraband could be found in the motel room and in the nylon bag carried by one of the defendants (Juvetino Munoz) with a criminal history.
The task of a reviewing court in evaluating a search warrant affidavit is simply to insure that the judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. A magistrate's determination of probable cause should be accorded great deference. See State v. Hamilton, 572 So.2d 269 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1990), writs denied at 578 So.2d 929 (La. 1991). In doubtful cases, the preference of the appellate court should be to uphold validity so as to encourage law enforcement officials to submit evidence to a judicial officer before acting. State v. Mayes, 532 So.2d 331 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988), writs denied at 560 So.2d 27 (La. 1990).
Here, we find fairly clear not doubtful probable cause in the affidavit.
DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED; REMANDED.