State v. Huff

Citations: 654 P.2d 1211; 33 Wash. App. 304; 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 3398Docket: 4790-3-III

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; November 30, 1982; Washington; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bruce N. Huff appeals his conviction for possession of over 40 grams of marijuana, arguing primarily against the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The case stems from a search warrant issued on April 22, 1981, based on an affidavit that detailed the address of the suspected location, the informant's recent personal observation of marijuana, the informant's familiarity with the substance, and reasons for the informant's reliability. The warrant authorized a search of the residence and any individuals present.

Upon executing the warrant, police found marijuana in plain sight and additional evidence linked to Huff, including personal documents and drug paraphernalia. When Huff arrived, he was searched, revealing 55.1 grams of marijuana in a tennis ball can, along with 107.8 grams found in his car's trunk.

Huff contended the informant's information was stale and the affidavit lacked specifics regarding the quantity and packaging of the marijuana, thereby rendering it unreliable. The court rejected these arguments, asserting that information purportedly 60 hours old was not stale under common sense standards and that the affidavit sufficiently established the informant's basis of knowledge through direct observation, fulfilling the criteria for probable cause as outlined in relevant case law. The court affirmed the conviction.

Mr. Huff argues that the evidence presented to establish the informant's reliability was conclusory and nonspecific, but this claim is rejected. Under the Aguilar/Spinelli test's second prong, sufficient facts must be presented to assess the informant's credibility. Although merely stating an informant is credible is inadequate, historical accurate information leading to arrests and convictions suffices. The affidavit in this case provided four specific reasons for the informant's reliability: 1) verified information provided to the Yakima drug unit, 2) no false information given, 3) previous information led to a controlled buy, and 4) information resulted in successful search warrants for marijuana. Therefore, the court finds no error regarding the informant's reliability.

Additionally, Mr. Huff contends that the search of his person was improper since the warrant named "John Doe" instead of him. This argument is also rejected. The court references Tacoma v. Mundell, which held that a warrant for premises cannot be generalized to search individuals unless evidence is found during the search. However, the current case differs because the warrant included a specific individual, "John Doe," and incriminating evidence was discovered during the search. The ruling aligns with Michigan v. Summers, which permits detaining individuals during the execution of a valid search warrant if probable cause exists. Thus, the warrant's allowance for searching persons and the discovery of incriminating evidence authorized the search of Mr. Huff as part of a lawful arrest.

Mr. Huff argues that the search of his automobile lacked authorization from the warrant and that no exceptions to the warrant requirement applied, necessitating suppression of the evidence obtained. However, the court disagrees, noting that the warrant allowed a search of all personal property on the described premises. Even if the warrant did not explicitly authorize the automobile search, a warrantless search can be constitutionally valid if there is probable cause, the vehicle is movable, occupants are alerted, and there is a risk that evidence could be destroyed if a warrant is sought. In this case, exigent circumstances were present because Mr. Huff’s arrest meant he would be taken to the police station, allowing other occupants to potentially remove contraband from the vehicle. The court affirmed the search, with judges McInturff and Roe concurring, and denied reconsideration on January 7, 1983.