Opinion
Case No. 03-40048-01-RDR
August 12, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This order is issued to record the court's ruling upon a motion to suppress. The court listened to arguments regarding the motion on August 8, 2003 and announced at the conclusion of the hearing that the court would deny the motion. This order is issued to elaborate upon the support for that decision.
Defendant's motion seeks the suppression of evidence seized from his vehicle and his residence as well as statements allegedly made by defendant following his arrest. Defendant contends that a search warrant for his vehicle was not supported by probable cause and that the search of his residence and the statements he made were a direct result of the search of his vehicle, and, therefore must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The affidavit in support of the search warrant for the vehicle states that Roger Proehl, a detective with the Lyon County Sheriff's Office, spoke to Brenda Castaldi, who said she was abducted and taken against her will to various locations by defendant Darrell Walker. The affidavit states that Castaldi said she was taken by an acquaintance (Bruce Chenoweth) to a location where Chenoweth said he needed to stop. Chenoweth told Castaldi to look inside a building at something. Castaldi said that when she entered the building she was attacked by Darrell Walker, who placed a length of rope around her neck and restricted her breathing as he accused her of stealing methamphetamine from him. Castaldi continued her report by alleging that she was hog-tied by Walker and placed in his truck — a white Ford "dually" truck with red rear fenders. She said that Walker drove away with her in his truck, holding a firearm in his lap. She discussed what happened during her ride in the truck. She said the ropes were untied and she smoked some cigarettes inside the truck, placing the cigarette butts in the ashtray. Castaldi further stated that she was eventually released somewhere in Osage County after being threatened and having the firearm discharged near her head.
The affidavit for the search warrant recounted that records reflected that Walker owned a "1883 Ford F-350 truck" and had a criminal history of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell. Elsewhere in the affidavit and in the search warrant, the truck was identified as a "1983 Ford F-350 truck."
The court must examine the affidavit for the search warrant by according "great deference" to the magistrate's determination of probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). We must determine whether there is a substantial basis for the magistrate's conclusion that probable cause existed. Id.
Here, defendant attacks the basis for finding that the informant was reliable or credible. We must examine this question under a totality of the circumstances standard. Gates, 462 U.S. at 233-35.
The Supreme Court has stated that an "explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand" entitles a tip to "greater weight than might otherwise be the case." Gates, 462 U.S. at 234. In this instance, we have an explicit and detailed description of events observed firsthand by a named informant. Ms. Castaldi's information was not stale. She named her alleged assailant as well as another person involved in the matter. She described the truck in which she was abducted and gave other details of the events. She was able to be questioned by an investigator with law enforcement experience who could assess her credibility. This is a factor which supports reliance upon an informant's account. U.S. v. Robertson, 39 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 1994) cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1090 (1995). In addition, the officers were able to corroborate her account to some degree by confirming defendant's ownership of a Ford pickup truck and that he had prior criminal history involving drug possession.
There are many cases in which arrests or searches and seizures were found to be justified upon the report of an eyewitness informant or victim. See, e.g., U.S. v. Patane, 304 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (10th Cir. 2002) (upholding arrest and stating "we reject any suggestion that victims of domestic violence are unreliable witnesses whose testimony cannot establish probable cause absent independent corroboration"); Easton v. City of Boulder, 776 F.2d 1441, 1449 (10th Cir. 1985) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 816 (1986) ("when examining informant evidence used to support a claim of probable cause for a warrant, or a warrantless arrest, the skepticism and careful scrutiny usually found in cases involving informants . . . is appropriately relaxed if the informant is an identified victim or ordinary citizen witness"); Guzell v. Hiller, 223 F.3d 518, 519-20 (7th Cir. 2000) ("police are entitled to base an arrest on a citizen complaint . . . of a victim . . . without investigating the truthfulness of the complaint, unless . . . they have reason to believe it's fishy"); Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 818 (3rd Cir. 1997) ("[w]hen a police officer has received a reliable identification by a victim of his or her attacker, the police have probable cause to arrest."); U.S. v. Pasquarille, 20 F.3d 682, 687-88 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 986 (1994) (tip from unnamed observer of attempted drug sale whose information has some corroboration provides probable cause for search of van); Torchinsky v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 1991) (it is "reasonable for a police officer to base his belief on probable cause on a victim's reliable identification of his attacker"); U.S. v. Gagnon, 635 F.2d 766, 768 (10th Cir. 1980) cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1018 (1981) (the Tenth Circuit has "long subscribed to the rule that an affidavit need not set forth facts of a named person's prior history as a reliable informant when the informant is a citizen/neighbor eyewitness with no apparent ulterior motive for providing false information").
On the basis of the above-cited facts and authority, we believe the judge issuing the search warrant for the vehicle had a substantial basis for making the determination of probable cause.
The good faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) also applies to support the admission of evidence collected in good faith reliance upon the issuance of the search warrant in this case. The court believes the search could be upheld under this doctrine, even if the affidavit for the search warrant was considered deficient.
Finally, the defense has made reference to alleged mistakes in the description of the vehicle to be searched. The court finds that any typographical error in the affidavit involving the model year of the truck provides no grounds for suppression. It is obvious that the model year was not "1883." Affidavits for search warrants are to be construed in a "`common sense, nontechnical manner.'" U.S. v. Edmonson, 962 F.2d 1535, 1540 (10th Cir. 1992) quoting, U.S. v. Massey, 687 F.2d 1348, 1355 (10th Cir. 1982). Taking that approach in this instance, the typographical error provides no grounds for suppression in this case. Cf., U.S. v. Jones, 208 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2000) (typographical error in listing the address to be searched in an affidavit does not justify suppression). Nor does the court believe that any other mistakes warrant suppression. It appears undisputed that the officers executing the search warrant were able to find and search the vehicle that was intended to be searched. If there were any other mistakes in the description of the vehicle, they do not undermine the good reasons for sustaining the warrant and the good faith exception doctrine in this case.
For these reasons, the court denied defendant's motion to suppress.