Case Title: State v. Metzner

Citation: 338 N.W.2d 799

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1983-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
338 N.W.2d 799 (1983) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Russell METZNER, Defendant and Appellee. Crim. No. 931. Supreme Court of North Dakota. September 29, 1983. *800 Gail H. Hagerty, State's Atty., Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant. James J. Coles, Bismarck, for defendant and appellee. Bruce D. Quick, Exec. Director, North Dakota State's Attys. Ass'n, Fargo, amicus curiae. PAULSON, Surrogate Justice.[*] This is an appeal by the State from an order suppressing evidence entered in the District Court of Burleigh County. We reverse.[1] On October 22, 1982, the defendant, Russell Metzner [Metzner], was arrested and charged with possession of more than one ounce of marijuana, a class C felony. Following a preliminary hearing and arraignment in district court, Metzner entered a plea of not guilty and filed a motion to suppress "all evidence obtained by the state as a result of a search conducted on or about October 21, 1982, at the residence of the defendant". A hearing on the motion was held on March 29, 1983, in the District Court of Burleigh County. On April 5, 1983, the judge issued an order suppressing evidence. It is from this order that the State now appeals. On October 21, 1982, John P. Burkel, a special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stationed in Fargo, obtained a search warrant authorizing the search of Metzner's residence for a firearm and documents evidencing the purchase or possession of the firearm. In seeking the search warrant, as well as a warrant for Metzner's arrest for a violation of the federal firearms law involving the possession of a firearm by a felon, Burkel prepared an affidavit which was signed and sworn to before a United States magistrate. This affidavit alleged, in relevant part, as follows: Upon obtaining the search warrant, Burkel contacted the Burleigh County Sheriff's Department and the Bismarck Police Department, and requested assistance in serving the search warrant. Burkel and five other law enforcement agents then proceeded to Metzner's residence. Metzner was stopped in his vehicle some distance from his home. He was placed under arrest and handcuffed. The arrest *803 occurred pursuant to an arrest warrant which was issued at the same time as the search warrant. The officers then transported Metzner to his home where they were going to execute the search warrant. Upon entering the residence, the officers located three firearms, including the rifle described in the search warrant. In addition, they located several bags of a substance which, based upon their experience and training, they concluded was marijuana. Some of the marijuana was found in plain view when the officers entered a bedroom where two of the firearms were located. Other bags were discovered throughout the residence as the officers searched for sales receipts and other documents evidencing the purchase of the firearm. In suppressing the marijuana, the district court determined that Burkel's affidavit in support of the search warrant was deficient. Consequently the plain view doctrine was not appropriate. The court held that there was an illegal entry into Metzner's residence and therefore the seizure of the evidence was illegal. In reaching this conclusion the district judge stated that: It is the State's contention that paragraph X of Burkel's affidavit is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the weapons were located with Metzner's home and that the search was conducted pursuant to a valid warrant. We begin by noting that the evidence sought to be suppressed was not listed in the search warrant. It was seized in the defendant's home pursuant to the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971). Such a seizure is proper only if the officer's initial intrusion into this constitutionally protected area was itself valid and proper. Because there is neither evidence nor allegation of exigent circumstances, the resolution of this issue is necessarily dependent upon the validity of the search warrant issued by the United States magistrate. The district court determined that Burkel's affidavit did not state facts which established probable cause to search Metzner's residence and that the magistrate erred when he issued the warrant. When, as here, the district court's decision is a determination only of the narrow question whether the information contained in the affidavit satisfied the test of probable cause, the question is one of law based strictly on written evidence. We therefore review the sufficiency of the affidavit independent of the district court's determination. A magistrate's factual conclusions in determining whether probable cause exists to issue a warrant are entitled to great deference. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S. Ct. 584, 590, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969); United States v. Brown, 584 F.2d 252, 256 (8th Cir.1978); State v. Berger, 285 N.W.2d 533, 537 (N.D.1979). The magistrate, most closely acquainted with the facts supporting the warrant and often familiar with the affiant, is allowed to exercise his own judgment and to interpret the supporting affidavit as a whole in a realistic and commonsense manner; a doubtful or marginal case should be resolved in favor of his determination of probable cause. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 577, 91 S. Ct. 2075, 2079, 29 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1970); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965); State v. Berger, supra 285 N.W.2d at 537; State v. Iverson, 187 N.W.2d 1, 28 (N.D. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 956, 92 S. Ct. 322, 30 L. Ed. 2d 273. As long as there is a substantial basis for the magistrate's conclusion that probable cause exists, and the magistrate is performing his "neutral and detached" function, the judicial determination of probable cause will not be disturbed. In Bastida v. Henderson, 487 F.2d 860, 863 (5th Cir.1973), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals explained: Accord, United States v. Allen, 588 F.2d 1100, 1105-1106 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied sub nom., Perkins v. United States, 441 U.S. 965, 99 S. Ct. 2415, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1071 (1979), and cases cited therein. The district court's order was based on its determination that there was not probable cause to believe that the rifle sought in Burkel's affidavit would be found in Metzner's home. The court points out that there were no facts which would indicate that the rifle had been removed from Metzner's vehicle and brought into his home other than Burkel's opinion that "people usually do". To begin our analysis, we note that there was probable cause to believe that Metzner had purchased a rifle from Scheels's Hardware; that Metzner was a convicted felon; that his purchase of the weapon was a violation of federal law; and that the residence mentioned in the affidavit was Metzner's home. Probable cause to believe that Metzner had committed a crime does not, however, establish probable cause to search his house for evidence of that crime. In order to justify the search there must have been a nexus between the house to be searched and the evidence sought. United States v. Green, 634 F.2d 222 (5th Cir.1981). That nexus, however, need not be established by direct observation. The Fourth Amendment does not require an unbroken trail of evidence and allegation. United States v. Bulgatz, 693 F.2d 728, 731 (8th Cir.1982). The affidavit need not establish certaintymere probability will suffice. It is only necessary that the facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the articles sought were located "at the place to be searched". United *805 States v. Maestas, 546 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir.1977). "For instance, evidence that a defendant has stolen material which one normally would expect him to hide at his residence will support a search of his residence." Id. at 1180. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1970), in the context of a case involving stolen property: In the instant case we are concerned with a violation of the federal firearms laws and, in particular, with the whereabouts of a rifle allegedly purchased and possessed by a convicted felon. A magistrate considering the affidavit at issue here could logically conclude that a person would keep a rifle in his house. This would be particularly true of a convicted felon who would logically be concerned that his possession of the weapon remain secret. If, as the district court appears to suggest, there is some significance to be drawn from its determination that the rifle might just as logically have remained in the car, it is sufficient to say that the magistrate might well have concluded that a convicted felon would more logically secrete a rifle in his home, than in his car which carries a considerably diminished expectation of privacy and is more readily open to legitimate search by the authorities with a wider variety of justifications. While we agree that the particular question presented is a close one, we choose to resolve the doubt in favor of sustaining the search, and the judgment of the magistrate. We recognize that determinations of probable cause often fall into a gray area in which reasonable persons might justifiably come to different conclusions. There is no "bright line" test by which to judge the sufficiency of an affidavit. See Illinois v. Gates, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983); Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S. Ct. 1623, 10 L. Ed. 2d 726 (1963). The facts necessary for a determination of probable cause will necessarily vary from case to case, depending upon the nature of the crime and the objects sought. Upon review of the affidavit in question and consideration of the permissible inferences to be drawn therefrom, we conclude that the magistrate performed his "neutral and detached" function and that his determination of probable cause was not arbitrary. We therefore reverse the district court's order suppressing evidence. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and PEDERSON, VANDE WALLE and SAND, JJ., concur. [*] Justice WM. L. PAULSON served as a Surrogate Justice for this case pursuant to Section 27-17-03, N.D.C.C. [1] Amicus curiae, the North Dakota State's Attorney Association, urges this court to adopt a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. We first note that this issue was not argued in the lower court, nor was it raised by the State on appeal. Because we have determined that probable cause to issue the warrant did exist, we do not deem it necessary, at this time, to consider the adoption of a "good faith" exception, as urged by the amicus curiae.