 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State3/31/2004
house:
Haight: Aparicio - well, basically, the course of the conversation was that Blaine Smith could get any amount of methamphetamines that N- 428 wanted.
But Haight never clarified this remark: that is, he never told the magistrate who, exactly, made this assertion about Smith's ability to obtain methamphetamine, or when this assertion was made, or under what circumstances. In particular, it is impossible to tell from Haight's description whether Smith said this to N-428, or whether "Nick" said this to N-428, or whether Aparicio said this to N-428.
Moreover, if it was "Nick" or Aparicio who made this remark to N-428, it is impossible to tell (from Haight's narrative) whether they did so in Smith's presence or, instead, whether they made the remark in private conversation with N-428.
Haight told the magistrate that the police had independently verified that Aparicio and Wilshusen were associates. Haight explained that the police had had these two men under surveillance (although he did not say when this surveillance occurred), and he further asserted that, based on this surveillance, the police knew that Aparicio and Wilshusen were associates even before N-428 reported this information to the police.
Haight informed the magistrate that, the previous Saturday, a fellow officer "saw Aparicio's vehicle at Blaine Smith's residence". Haight further asserted that "we have seen Wilshusen in connection with the Blaine Smith residence" - although Haight did not explain what he meant by that.
In addition, Haight told the magistrate that, the previous December (i.e., approximately seven months before the warrant application), the police received a tip "from a female wanted to remain anonymous". According to this anonymous woman's tip, "Blaine Smith was heavily involved in drug trafficking". Haight told the magistrate that this anonymous informant had "described some of [Smith's] activities". According to Haight, the anonymous informant said,
They sent the money south. $15,000, I believe - it was sent south. They definitely made a trip from Haines.
However, Haight never told the magistrate which people he was referring to when he said "they". In fact, Haight's only other mention of people making a trip south from Haines was his assertion that the police had observed Wilshusen and his girlfriend get off of the Haines-Juneau ferry and make several quick trips to various Juneau residences. Haight did not assert that Smith participated in Wilshusen's visit to Juneau.
Finally, Haight told the magistrate that, on another occasion, the police "were making a purchase of methamphetamines using [a different] confidential informant, a resident Douglas", and that Smith "actually showed up with that." But a few moments later, Haight clarified that he was not asserting that Smith had played any role in the sale of methamphetamine to the informant. Rather, "as our [informant's] transaction was ending, our informant told us that Blaine Smith made a purchase of methamphetamine while she was leaving."
Sergeant Culbreth then took up the narrative. He told the magistrate that Wilshusen and Aparicio had either jointly purchased, or at least jointly shared, the same motor vehicle. Culbreth testified that on July 11 (i.e., one month before the warrant application), he personally observed Wilshusen drive from his home on the Glacier Highway to Smith's house. When Wilshusen arrived at Smith's house, he placed a package in a vehicle that was parked there, a vehicle registered to Smith. Culbreth said that he also saw Wilshusen remove another package from this same vehicle and carry it into Smith's house.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|