Case Title: State v. Smith

Citation: 112 Ariz. 531, 544 P.2d 213

Docket Number: 3251

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1975-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
112 Ariz. 531 (1975) 544 P.2d 213 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. David Jay SMITH, Appellant. No. 3251. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. December 23, 1975. Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, and Cleon M. Duke, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. F.M. Aspey, Flagstaff, for appellant. *532 CAMERON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal by David J. Smith from a judgment of guilt to misdemeanor possession of marijuana, A.R.S. § 36-1002.05, and felony possession of dangerous drugs, A.R.S. § 32-1970. On appeal, defendant attacks only the denial of his motion to suppress evidence raising the following questions: The facts necessary for the determination of the above questions are as follows. On 1 September 1974, at approximately 6:50 a.m., Deputy LaBarbera of the Coconino County Sheriff's Office was dispatched to investigate a one vehicle accident near Flagstaff, Arizona. Upon reaching the scene, the deputy observed a 1962 Studebaker which had run off the left side of the road and struck a gas meter; he was informed by a witness at the scene that the driver of the vehicle had left the area on foot. Deputy LaBarbera called for a check on the car's registration and opened the left front door, looking for evidence of ownership. He noticed inside the vehicle a disposable plastic hypodermic syringe and an opened envelope addressed to David Smith, Route 2, Box 201, Flagstaff. The deputy read the letter inside the envelope which contained an offer to purchase a "keg of bennies" for $4,000. Before leaving the scene, Deputy LaBarbera received information that the vehicle was registered to Clarence A. or Florence Smith. The deputy then went to the address on the envelope and knocked on the door of a house trailer located there. An individual, later identified as Mark Ryan Seeger, answered the door and stated that David J. Smith lived there. Defendant Smith then appeared and stepped out of the trailer. In response to Deputy LaBarbera's questions, defendant stated that he was David J. Smith and that he had been driving a white Studebaker which had run off the road. According to the deputy's testimony, defendant was staggering, his speech was slurred and his clothing was unkempt. Deputy LaBarbera then informed defendant that he was going to transport defendant to the accident scene and proceeded to pat-down the defendant for weapons. Again according to the deputy's testimony, defendant was not then under arrest and could have refused to go to the accident scene. Deputy LaBarbera further has testified that he had knowledge of no objective facts indicating that defendant was armed, but that he performed the pat-down pursuant to "departmental policy." During the course of the pat-down, Deputy LaBarbera discovered and seized a blackened metal spoon which was in defendant's left rear pocket and a clear plastic bag containing pills, which was partially protruding from defendant's right front pocket. At that point, Deputy LaBarbera informed defendant that he was under arrest. Defendant attempted to flee, but was physically subdued by Deputy LaBarbera and another officer. After defendant was in custody, Deputy LaBarbera continued his search of defendant's person and discovered a sum of money in excess of $4,000 in defendant's right front pocket. Defendant was then transported to Coconino County Jail. The officers then returned to the house trailer and proceeded to "secure" the premises by posting a police officer on the premises and not allowing any person or material to enter or leave the premises. *533 Mark Seeger, who was inside the trailer, objected to the procedure and was placed under arrest for obstructing justice, A.R.S. § 13-541; that charge was later dismissed. After the trailer was "secured," Deputy LaBarbera went before a Flagstaff City Magistrate and obtained a search warrant. The affidavit underlying the warrant has never been produced at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and the parties have stipulated that it was lost. After obtaining the warrant, Deputy LaBarbera returned to defendant's house trailer and, along with several other officers, conducted a search of the premises. The search revealed various items of contraband, including the marijuana underlying the present charge of possession of marijuana. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the various searches described above; the motion was denied by order dated 3 December 1974. Defendant then waived his right to trial by jury and, pursuant to a stipulation between defendant and the State, was tried on the basis of the testimony adduced at the pre-trial hearings. He was convicted on both charges. On the marijuana charge, the trial court suspended sentence for one year and ordered, as conditions of probation, that defendant spend 6 months in Coconino County Jail and participate in a drug rehabilitation program. On the dangerous drugs charge the court suspended sentence for two years and ordered, as conditions of probation, that defendant spend 6 months in the Coconino County Jail and participate in a drug rehabilitation program. The conditions of probation on the two charges were ordered to run concurrently, and have been stayed pending this appeal. THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH Defendant argues that the motion to suppress should have been granted on the grounds that the initial pat-down search conducted by Deputy LaBarbera was unlawful. Defendant relies heavily on the California Supreme Court case People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Simon), 7 Cal. 3d 186, 101 Cal. Rptr. 837, 496 P.2d 1205 (1972). The California Supreme Court in Simon, supra, held that: However, in his concurring opinion in that case, Chief Justice Wright noted that: The Chief Justice went on to indicate that he would approve such a search stating: *534 And a later California Court of Appeals case, in a non-arrest situation, has stated: We agree what whenever an individual is to be transported in a police vehicle, a pat-down search is reasonable, proper, and lawful for the protection of the officer. We find no error. SECURING THE PREMISES Defendant, again relying on California cases, argues that the actions of the police officers in "securing" the trailer were unlawful and that all evidence seized under the warrant is therefore tainted and must be suppressed. We disagree. If the warrant was properly issued the search in response thereto was a proper search and seizure and the fact that the premises may have been illegally secured does not operate to nullify the effect of the search warrant. The fact that defendant or his friends were deprived of the opportunity to destroy the evidence while the officers went to obtain a search warrant does not make the warrant infirm as Justice Cole in his dissent stated: Also we do not find the officers' actions herein in securing the premises were such that they should be disapproved by this court. It may well be that had the facts been developed on this point that the officer, on the basis of exigent circumstances, would have had the right to search the premises without first obtaining a warrant. Instead he chose to secure the premises and seek out a magistrate for a warrant. The officers' actions were preferable to searching the premises without a warrant and complied with both the letter and the spirit of the law. We find no error. THE LOST AFFIDAVIT Deputy LaBarbera testified on three different occasions as to the contents of the affidavit. At the 9 September 1974 preliminary hearing, he testified as follows: At a second preliminary hearing, on charges not contained in the original information, held on 23 September 1974, Deputy LaBarbera testified as follows: At the omnibus hearing, held on 6 November 1974, Deputy LaBarbera testified as follows: The magistrate who issued the warrant was called to testify at the omnibus hearing but stated that he had no recollection of the facts stated in the affidavit. Under Arizona law it is clear that a search warrant must be supported by written affidavit or recorded oral testimony given under oath. Our statutes provide as follows: And we have held that under the 1971 Amendment to A.R.S. § 13-1444, unrecorded oral testimony cannot be used to cure a deficient affidavit. State v. Robertson, 111 Ariz. 423, 531 P.2d 1134 (1975). Defendant argues on the basis of the above authority that his motion to suppress must be granted due to the State's failure to produce the affidavit. We disagree. This is not a situation of oral testimony being used to supplement an otherwise deficient affidavit and there is no question that the affidavit did in fact exist. Rather, the State presented oral testimony, given under oath and subject to cross-examination, to establish the contents of a missing affidavit. There is no hint of intentional misconduct or bad faith on the part of the prosecution. The affidavit was lost and the court was correct in allowing the testimony as to what the affidavit did in fact contain. Under these circumstances, we feel the court acted properly in allowing the State to prove the contents of the affidavit by oral testimony. PROBABLE CAUSE Finally, defendant argues that the affidavit as proved by the State was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. We recognize the dangers of using oral testimony for such a purpose, and there were admittedly understandable inconsistencies in Deputy LaBarbera's testimony on the three occasions he was questioned concerning the affidavit. It is unclear, for example, from Deputy LaBarbera's testimony whether there was mention in the affidavit of the contents of the letter found in defendant's car. However, we find it unnecessary to determine that issue of fact since there were sufficient other facts in the affidavit upon which the magistrate might reasonably have based his finding of probable cause. A review of the hearing transcripts discloses *537 that aside from the contents of the letter, Deputy LaBarbera's testimony concerning the affidavit remained consistent in all essential respects, and supports a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and HAYS, HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.