 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Miller9/8/2003
ORDER AFFIRMED EN BANC
JUSTICE COATS dissents, and JUSTICE KOURLIS and JUSTICE RICE join in the dissent.
In this interlocutory appeal, filed pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 and section 16-12-102(2), 6 C.R.S. (2002), the prosecution appeals the district court's order suppressing evidence of methamphetamine manufacture seized from defendant Wade Miller's home. Nearly a month expired between the event the informant related and application by the police for the warrant. The trial court set aside the warrant for lack of probable cause and suppressed the evidence seized--for lack of good faith police reliance on the sufficiency of the warrant--because the only information linking the illegal activity to the place to be searched, Miller's home, was stale. We agree with the trial court and affirm its suppression order.
I.
On January 6, 2003, the police obtained and executed a search warrant for Miller's home. During the search, the police discovered a methamphetamine laboratory, arrested Miller, and charged him with possessing and operating the lab.
The warrant was based on a police affidavit reciting information from an anonymous informant. The informant said that, on December 9, 2002, at Miller's home, he smoked some methamphetamine Miller had just finished manufacturing there. The informant also stated that Miller kept methamphetamine manufacturing supplies in his kitchen cabinets. The affidavit also recited another informant's information--current at the time of application for this warrant on January 6, 2003--that Miller was manufacturing methamphetamine at a location other than his home. But the affidavit (attached as Exhibit A) contained no information more current than December 9, 2002, regarding manufacture or the presence of contraband at Miller's home.
The record made at the suppression hearing discloses that the police obtained and executed warrants for the other location and Miller's home on January 6, but the affidavit for search of the other location inexplicably contains more current information regarding manufacture of the drug by Miller at his home than was contained in the affidavit for search of his home.
As to the affidavit for search of Miller's home, the trial court found that (1) the police had recited sufficient reliable information to implicate Miller in the manufacture of methamphetamine; (2) but the information regarding drug manufacturing by Miller at his home was stale; and (3) the police could not have reasonably relied on it in applying for the warrant. The trial court concluded that the warrant lacked probable cause, and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because no reasonably objective police officer would have relied on the warrant's sufficiency. It therefore granted Miller's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from search of his home.
II.
We agree with the trial court that the warrant in this case was not based on probable cause, and the police could not have reasonably relied on it, because the information regarding drug manufacturing at Miller's home was stale when the police applied for the warrant, and no reasonable police officer would have relied on it. Accordingly, the exclusionary rule operates in this case, not the good faith exception to it.
A. Deficient Warrant and the Good Faith Exception
When reviewing a suppression order, we defer to the trial court's findings of facts, if supported by the record; and we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo. People v. Schall, 59 P.3d 848, 851 (Colo. 2002); People v. D.F., 933 P.2d 9, 13-14 (Colo. 1997).
We address this case using the f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|