 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sundberg9/16/2003
(not designated for permanent publication)
These appeals involve the validity of a search warrant in which the informant was the 17-year-old son of defendant Carl A. Sundberg (Carl Jr.), stepson of defendant Tara L. Sundberg, and nephew of defendant Darren S. Sundberg. Upon the consolidated motions to suppress of said three defendants (hereinafter collectively the appellees), the district court for Sarpy County found that the affidavit failed to establish the credibility of the informant, that the search warrant was invalid, and that the fruits of the search (i.e., illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia) must be suppressed. The county attorney for Sarpy County has appealed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Cum. Supp. 2002), which provides for summary review of a suppression order by a single judge of the Court of Appeals. I reverse, and remand the causes for further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Carl Jr. was charged with three counts of possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, oxycodone, and cocaine. Tara, Carl Jr.'s wife, and Darren, Carl Jr.'s brother, were both charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine and cocaine. Each defendant entered not guilty pleas and filed a motion to suppress. Those consolidated motions were heard on April 22, 2003, and sustained on April 28. These timely appeals followed, brought by the State through the county attorney for Sarpy County; the cases, having been consolidated for briefing and decision, were argued before this court on July 22.
AFFIDAVIT
The cases are determined by the information contained within the "four corners" of the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant, and evidence which emerges after the warrant is issued has no bearing on whether the warrant was validly issued. See State v. March, 265 Neb. 447, 658 N.W.2d 20 (2003). In this case, the evidence introduced on the motions to suppress was limited to the affidavit, the search warrant, and the return. I focus on the affidavit.
The affidavit in evidence is that of Det. R.J. Radik, a 20-year employee of the Bellevue Police Department who had many years of experience in special investigations involving narcotics and drugs. The affidavit incorporates information received from a Bellevue police officer named "Pilmaier" who had the conversations with the informant. Applying the collective knowledge doctrine, the fact that Detective Radik relates Officer Pilmaier's information in the affidavit is inconsequential as the collective knowledge of investigating officers can form a reliable basis for the issuance of a warrant. See State v. Stickelman, 207 Neb. 429, 299 N.W.2d 520 (1980).
The affidavit seeks a search warrant for property located at a single-family dwelling on Twin Ridge Drive in Bellevue, Nebraska, and under the custody of Carl Jr., Tara, and Darren. The affidavit recites that Officer Pilmaier received information from Carl Jr.'s 17-year-old son (hereinafter the son) that there was illicit drug use occurring at the Twin Ridge Drive house where the appellees resided. The affidavit recites that a records check of the son indicated that he had no arrests for false reporting or perjury and that he was not on probation, parole, or work release. The son told Officer Pilmaier that he wished to remain anonymous. According to the affidavit, the son advised that he had personally observed marijuana use by Carl Jr. and Darren while he was at the house and that the marijuana was kept in a toolbox in the garage. Moreover, the son recounted that he had personally observed "a block of brownish material, a razor blade, and a flat plate," which he believ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|