Opinion
No. 56038-7-I.
May 22, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-1-02679-2, Andrea A. Darvis, J., entered March 9, 2005.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Jeffrey L. Kradel, Cohen Iaria, 1008 Western Ave Ste 302, Seattle, WA 98104-1090.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Christopher Anderson, Attorney at Law, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2385.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Information received from a citizen informant provides probable cause for an arrest if the State establishes both the informant's basis of knowledge and some indicia of his or her reliability. Because the officer who arrested Mario Villania was justified in relying on information he received from two unnamed but uniformed Alaska Airline agents, the arrest and resulting search incident to arrest were lawful. The trial court correctly denied Villania's motion to suppress the drug evidence uncovered in the search. We affirm.
State v. Chatmon, 9 Wn. App. 741, 745-46, 515 P.2d 530 (1973).
Port of Seattle Police Officers Terence Kwan, Joey Russo, and Stephen Courtney were dispatched to the Alaska Airlines concourse at Sea-Tac airport to investigate an assault reported by an airline agent. Upon arriving, Officer Russo observed the defendant, Mario Villania, engaged in a loud discussion with his wife in the gate waiting area. Passengers gathered at the gate directed Officer Russo to Villania, who detained him for questioning.
Officer Kwan approached the three uniformed Alaska Airlines agents at the counter. Two of the agents pointed out Villania, his wife, and a second woman, telling Officer Kwan that the three had been involved in a fight. One of the agents then indicated that during the struggle Villania "had . . . both his hands around [his wife's] neck."
Officer Kwan then placed Villania and the two women under arrest and told the other officers to transport them to a secured booking area. As Villania was being handcuffed, Will Cravens, an off-duty police detective approached Officer Courtney, identified himself, and indicated that Villania had been attempting to break up a fight between the two women. After Villania was transported to the booking area, but before he was searched, Officer Courtney relayed Detective Cravens' business card and report to Officer Kwan.
At the station, Officer Russo searched Villania incident to his arrest and discovered a bag of crystal methamphetamine.
Villania moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing that the search was unlawful because there was no probable cause for his arrest. The trial court concluded that Officer Kwan was justified in relying on the information provided by the agents, though he did not then know their names because they were in uniform, and he recognized them as airline employees. The court denied the suppression motion.
Villania appeals. PROBABLE CAUSE
Villania argues that the trial court erred in admitting drug evidence uncovered in a search incident to arrest because the arrest was not based on probable cause. Specifically, he contends that the information received from the unnamed, uniformed Alaskan Airlines agents did not provide sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a custodial arrest. We disagree.
Probable cause for an arrest exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in a belief that an offense has been . . . committed." The officer need not have evidence proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the facts and circumstances must point to the probability of criminal activity.
State v. Herzog, 73 Wn. App. 34, 53, 867 P.2d 648 (1994) (quoting State v. Fricks, 91 Wn.2d 391, 398, 588 P.2d 1328 (1979)).
State v. Knighten, 109 Wn.2d 896, 903, 748 P.2d 1118 (1988).
State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 906-07, 632 P.2d 44 (1981).
In Washington, a tip from a citizen informant provides probable cause to arrest if it satisfies the two-prong Aguilar-Spinelli inquiry. To satisfy this test, the informant must provide (1) an independent and objective basis for evaluating the informant's basis of knowledge, and (2) underlying circumstances supporting the informant's reliability. These two prongs have an independent status and probable cause arises only when both are satisfied. We review de novo the trial court's conclusions of law following a suppression hearing.
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969); see also State v. Wible, 113 Wn. App. 18, 22, 51 P.3d 830, 833 (2002) (affidavit must set forth the informant's basis of knowledge and reliability); State v. Tarter, 111 Wn. App. 336, 340, 44 P.3d 899, 901 (2002) (Aguilar-Spinelli test applied where informants were named citizens); State v. McReynolds, 104 Wn. App. 560, 572-73, 17 P.3d 608 (2000), review denied, 144 Wn.2d 1003 (2001) (citizen informant was readily identifiable through affidavit).
State v. Conner, 58 Wn. App. 90, 98, 791 P.2d 261 (1990); State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 435, 688 P.2d 136 (1984).
Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 437.
State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999).
Basis of Knowledge
The basis of knowledge prong is satisfied when the informant declares that he or she personally has seen the facts asserted and is passing on first-hand information.
Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 437.
Here, Officer Kwan testified that the three gate agents had a clear view of the entire gate area, and all three told him they had witnessed the fight between Villania and the two women. Officer Kwan also testified that from their position behind the counter, the agents had a clear view of the gate area where the fight occurred. One agent reported seeing Villania put both hands around his wife's neck during the struggle.
The trial court correctly concluded that the informants had a sufficient basis of knowledge for the information provided.
Reliability
The reliability prong may be satisfied by: (1) establishing the informant's credibility, or (2) even if nothing is known about the informant, showing that the facts and circumstances under which the information was furnished reasonably support an inference that the informant is telling the truth. A named informant is presumed reliable if the circumstances that establish personal knowledge are sufficiently detailed.
State v. Lair, 95 Wn.2d 706, 710, 630 P.2d 427 (1981).
State v. Gaddy, 114 Wn. App. 702, 707, 60 P.3d 116 (2002); Wible, 113 Wn. App. at 24 (no independent corroboration required); Tarter, 111 Wn. App. at 340 (State's burden is "relaxed" with regard to the veracity of citizen informants); McReynolds, 104 Wn. App. at 572-73 (informant was readily identifiable from affidavit and provided information in "entirely unsuspicious circumstances"); State v. Bauer, 98 Wn. App. 870, 876 n. 5, 991 P.2d 668, 671 n. 5, review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1025 (2000) (noting lack of authority for defendant's argument that a citizen informant becomes a professional informant-for-hire if the citizen is interested in a public hotline financial award).
Villania relies on State v. Jones, which is distinguishable. In that case, a truck driver gestured to a passing officer that the driver in front of him was weaving erratically in traffic. The officer noted the company name on the side of the truck. He followed the car for some distance, looking for signs of drunk driving, but observed none. The subsequent stop of the suspect vehicle at an intersection was held to be unlawful. Noting that the only basis for establishing the reliability of the informant was a company name on the side of the truck, the court said, "A name written on the side of a truck, without more, is not qualitatively different from an anonymous but named telephone caller." The court held that more information was needed to establish an informant's reliability.
85 Wn. App. 797, 934 P.2d 1224 (1997).
Jones, 85 Wn. App. at 799.
Jones, 85 Wn. App. at 800.
Jones, 85 Wn. App. at 800.
Here, much more information existed. Officer Kwan took the report of the assault directly from the uniformed gate agents, who he recognized from previous airport patrols. The agents were in uniform and known to Officer Kwan, though he did not know their names before the incident. They gave detailed descriptions of the assault, pointed out the suspects involved, and Officer Kwan corroborated that they had a clear view of the terminal. When the informant is an ordinary citizen, "[i]f the underlying circumstances are sufficiently detailed to satisfy the [basis of knowledge prong], they may themselves provide `built in credibility [guidelines] to the informant's reliability', thus fulfilling the second prong as well."
State v. Northness, 20 Wn. App. 551, 557, 582 P.2d 546 (1978) (citations omitted).
In State v. Conner, the police received a report from a Budget Rent-a-Car employee that an individual had stolen the wallet of a co-worker. The telephone informant told the police that the suspect was being detained at a nearby sales lot and provided a specific and detailed description. The police detained the suspect, and when the victim arrived, he identified Conner as the man who had taken his wallet. Based on this identification, the police placed Conner under arrest. A search incident to arrest uncovered the victim's wallet.
The court found both the initial detention and the arrest valid. This court noted that, though reliability might not appear to have been satisfied given the uncertain trustworthiness of a telephone informant, it nonetheless found the report reliable for two reasons. First, the Budget employee had not reported suspicious activity but, rather, a specific crime. In addition, the court found that the amount of detail given suggested that the information was obtained in a reliable fashion, i.e., from the victim himself. In addition to this information justifying the initial stop, the police had an identification of Conner by the victim. The court noted that, particularly where "eyewitnesses to crime summon the police, and the exigencies are such . . . that ascertainment of the identity and background of the informants would be unreasonable, the `reliability' requirement might be further relaxed."
Conner, 58 Wn. App. at 96.
Conner, 58 Wn. App. at 97.
Conner, 58 Wn. App. at 99.
Conner, 58 Wn. App. at 99.
The airline agents here reported a specific crime — assault — to which they were eyewitnesses. Villania was positively identified as the perpetrator by an eyewitness. The trial court correctly concluded that the informants were sufficiently reliable.
Finally, Villania maintains that the Officers should have released Villania once they received information from Detective Cravens contradicting the agents' reports. We again disagree.
As previously noted, probable cause does not require an arresting officer to have evidence proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the facts and circumstances must point to the probability of criminal activity.
Knighten, 109 Wn.2d at 903.
Seagull, 95 Wn.2d at 906-07 (emphasis added).
Villania cites no case for the proposition that probable cause can never be established where police receive conflicting reports from different reliable witnesses. The officers were entitled to rely on the reliable information provided by the airline agents to arrest Villania. Nothing required them to release him based on later, conflicting information.
We affirm the judgment and sentence.
COX, GROSSE and COLEMAN, JJ.