State v. Prestwich

Citations: 719 P.2d 1226; 110 Idaho 966; 1986 Ida. App. LEXIS 428Docket: 15955

Court: Idaho Court of Appeals; May 30, 1986; Idaho; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Police executed a search warrant at Keith Prestwich's mobile home, leading to the discovery of over 400 marijuana plants, which resulted in charges of manufacturing a controlled substance. Prestwich's subsequent motion to suppress the evidence was denied by the district court, prompting him to enter a conditional guilty plea while preserving his right to appeal the ruling. On appeal, Prestwich argued that the search warrant lacked probable cause and that the magistrate improperly authorized a nighttime search. The appellate court agreed, stating that the magistrate did not have a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, as the evidence was primarily based on anonymous tips. The court noted that the totality of the circumstances must be considered in determining probable cause, and in this case, the information provided by the anonymous callers was insufficient. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for reconsideration of the motion to suppress under the precedent set by *United States v. Leon*.

The affidavit confirmed the existence of the defendant's mobile home and an attached shed with a ventilation fan, noting that lights in the trailer were on at all hours. However, this did not establish probable cause for a search warrant. The 'totality of the circumstances' test supersedes the strict criteria of 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' from previous decisions but still recognizes these as initial steps in assessing probable cause, especially with undisclosed informants. The first informant provided minimal information, merely claiming that marijuana was present, which offered little credibility. The second informant claimed to have seen what looked like marijuana and noted the constant illumination of the trailer. Although her basis of knowledge was supported by her observations, a veracity gap remained due to the lack of corroborating evidence. The only additional facts were police confirmation of the home’s existence and the ventilation fan, which did not sufficiently address the informants' credibility or substantiate their claims. Consequently, the magistrate lacked a solid basis for determining probable cause for the warrant. The state argued for the 'good faith' exception from United States v. Leon, which allows for the admission of evidence obtained under a warrant later found to lack probable cause, provided officers relied on the warrant in good faith. However, suppression remains appropriate if the issuing magistrate was misled, abandoned their role, or if the affidavit was notably deficient in establishing probable cause. Given the insufficient nature of the affidavit, the third scenario from Leon may apply in this case.

Appellate courts exhibit differing views on whether the objective reasonableness of an officer's reliance on a search warrant is a legal question subject to de novo review or a mixed question of law and fact, also subject to de novo review. Some courts, such as those in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, uphold the de novo standard but diverge on whether a trial court should first determine the officer's good faith reliance on the warrant. In cases like United States v. Hendricks, courts may address the issue on appeal if the record is sufficient, while others, like in United States v. Accardo, may remand for an evidentiary hearing to allow both parties to present evidence on good faith reliance, especially when the Leon ruling was not in effect during the initial hearing. The Supreme Court's decision in Malley emphasized that the question of a police officer's immunity from civil liability hinges on whether their conduct was "objectively reasonable," without preemptively deciding the issue. This determination must be made on remand.

A remand to the trial court is deemed necessary for determining the objective good faith reliance of the officer involved, as the existing record may be incomplete for such a critical determination. The inquiry is based on whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the search was illegal despite a magistrate's authorization, considering all circumstances, including any prior rejection of the warrant application by another magistrate. The district court had upheld the search warrant without allowing either party to present evidence on the good faith exception. The officer, with significant experience, prepared an affidavit that ultimately failed to establish probable cause, raising concerns about potential "judge shopping" and the appropriateness of a nighttime search authorization, which lacked sufficient justification in the affidavit. Although Prestwich raised issues regarding the nighttime search to highlight the inadequacy of the probable cause presented, the search was conducted during daylight hours, making this concern less significant. The court directs the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to assess the objective reasonableness of the officer's reliance on the warrant. BURNETT and SWANSTROM, JJ. concur.