Case Title: SUSAN KAYE CRACKENBERGER V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 05-192

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUSAN KAYE CRACKENBERGER V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2006 WY 162149 P.3d 465Case Number: 05-192Decided: 12/28/2006
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
SUSAN 
KAYE CRACKENBERGER,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OFWYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofSheridanCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Kenneth 
M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Diane 
Courselle, Defender Aid Program Director; Suzannah B. Gambell, Student Intern; 
and Skip S. Reynolds, Student Intern.  
Argument by Mr. Reynolds.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; 
D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Matthew D. Obrecht, 
Student Intern; and Mackenzie Williams, Student Intern. Argument by 
Mr. Williams.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Susan 
Crackenberger ("the appellant") pled guilty to one count of child endangerment 
for permitting a child to remain in a dwelling wherein methamphetamine was 
possessed, stored, or ingested.  On 
appeal, she argues that the district court erred when it denied her motion to 
suppress the evidence law enforcement seized from her home.  We affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Whether the 
district court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress evidence 
because the information provided by named informants was unreliable, had no 
basis of knowledge, or was stale.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Law enforcement 
officers in Sheridan, 
Wyoming, executed a search warrant 
at the appellant's home on November 4, 2004.  During the search, the officers found 
methamphetamine residue as well as other methamphetamine-related 
paraphernalia.  The appellant was 
subsequently charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance, a 
misdemeanor, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i) (LexisNexis 
2005)1 and, because a minor child was 
living in the home at the time, one count of endangering a child, a felony, in 
violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-405(b) (LexisNexis 2005).2

 
 
[¶4]      The appellant's 
daughters provided most of the information that led to the issuance of the 
search warrant.  For clarity and 
confidentiality, we will refer to the daughters, from oldest to youngest, as D1, 
D2, D3, and D4.  The appellant filed 
a motion to suppress the items law enforcement seized while searching her home, 
but the district court denied that motion.  
The appellant then entered a conditional guilty plea based on a plea 
agreement, which agreement required the State to dismiss the methamphetamine 
possession charge and allowed the appellant to appeal the district court's 
denial of her suppression motion.  
The instant appeal followed.

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶5]      As we said in Rohda v. State, 2006 WY 120, ¶ 4, 142 P.3d 1155, 1158 (Wyo. 2006):

 
 
            
The duty of reviewing courts is simply to ensure that the warrant-issuing 
judicial officer had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause 
existed.  As both our Court and the 
United States Supreme Court have recognized, the resolution of doubtful or 
marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be 
accorded to warrants.  See, e.g., [Massachusetts v.] Upton, 466 U.S. [727,] 732-33, 104 S.Ct. [2085,] 2088 
[(1984) (per curiam)]; [Illinois v.] Gates, 462 U.S. [213,] 236, 103 S.Ct. [2317,] 2331 [(1983)]; 
Page [v. State, 2003 WY 23], ¶ 9, 63 P.3d 
[904,] 909 [(Wyo.2003)]; and   Davis v. State, 859 P.2d 89, 94 (Wyo.1993). 

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶6]      Patrick Raymond 
("the affiant"), a controlled substance investigator with the Wyoming Division 
of Criminal Investigation, submitted the search warrant affidavit at issue in 
the instant appeal, which reads, in pertinent part:

 
 
On 
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, the Affiant received a report from the Wyoming 
Department of Family Services (DFS), Sheridan Office.  The report was regarding a welfare check 
at the home of Alan and Susan CRACKENBERGER . . . .  [D1], not living in the home, contacted 
Janette Mydland, a caseworker at the DFS office in Sheridan, and requested a 
welfare check on her two sisters, [D4 and D3], who still reside in Alan and 
Susan's home . . . .  [D1] reported 
to Janette Mydland, that her parents, Alan and Susan use methamphetamine in the 
home, and the use is getting worse.  
[D1] and her other sister, [D2], not living in the home, are concerned 
that Alan and Susan are going to begin manufacturing methamphetamine in the 
home.  The parents have began 
constructing a glass globe with glass tubes coming out of the globe.  [D1] reported that Susan makes a weekly 
trip to South 
Dakota with a friend.  [D1] suspects this is how Susan and Alan 
are obtaining their methamphetamine.  
[D1] stated that Danny Dayton and Brandy Popp go to the house often and 
all of the adults go into a bedroom and remain there for long periods of 
time.  [D1] reported that her 
parents fight continuously, throwing and breaking items in the house when they 
fight.

 
 
On 
Tuesday, November 2, 2004, the Affiant checked criminal histories on Brandy Popp 
and Danny Dayton.  Danny Dayton was 
convicted of Misdemeanor Possession of a Controlled Substance in Campbell County 
Wyoming, on May 5, 1998.

 
 
On 
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, the Affiant arranged to meet with Janette Mydland 
of DFS, and conduct a telephonic interview with [D1], who resided in Baggs, Wyoming.  
[D1] reported to the Affiant essentially the 
following:

 
 
[D1] 
began the interview by saying her mother, Susan CRACKENBERGER and 
step-father Alan CRACKENBERGER, both use methamphetamine and don't take care for 
[sic] her two siblings, [D4 and D3].  
About five (5) years ago, [D1] discovered snort tubes, mirrors with 
suspected methamphetamine residue and razor blades around the 
house.

 
 
[D1] 
knows that Susan takes weekly trips, every Sunday or Wednesday, with Kathy HART, 
to Whitefish, South 
Dakota.  The 
two women leave in the afternoon and return late night/early morning.  Danny Dayton and his girlfriend, Brandy 
Pop[p], go to Susan and Alan's house frequently.  When all adults are in the house they 
lock themselves away in a room for long periods of time.  [D1] told the Affiant that pornography 
can be located all over the house and is commonly looked at while [D4 and D3] 
are present.

 
 
The most 
recent time [D1] has seen methamphetamine or paraphernalia in the house was this 
past May, 2004.  [D1] came to town 
to attend [D2's] graduation from high school.  [D1] was at Alan and Susan's house for a 
short period of time.  While in the 
house, [D1] saw a small mirror in the bathroom, with what she described as a 
whitish powder residue on the mirror.  
The residue left on the mirror was in the shape of several lines.  There were also razor blades kept next 
to the mirror.

 
 
[D1] 
told the Affiant that her youngest sister, [D4] would be willing to tell the 
truth about what was going on in the house because she is scared but [D3], the 
oldest of the two sisters living in the home, was very protective of her mother 
and would be apprehensive about talking with law 
enforcement.

 
 
On 
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, the Affiant and Special Agent Mike Gale, spoke with 
[D2], who was working at the Sheridan Wal Mart.  [D2] told the Affiant and Special Agent 
Gale substantially the following:

 
 
About 
two years ago, [D2] attended "biker dress up day" at her school.  [D2] borrowed her mother's leather coat 
to wear to school.  While at school, 
[D2] found a small amount of white powder wrapped in newspaper in her mother's 
coat pocket.  [D2] did not report 
what she had found to anyone and threw away the white powder.  [D2] did not say anything to her mother 
about the incident.

 
 
[D2] 
suspected her parents began using methamphetamine during her junior year of high 
school.  She noticed a drastic 
change in their behavior.  Susan and 
Alan stopped attending any school functions and began fighting more than what 
was normal.  [D2] said they fought 
as frequent as six (6) days per week.  
[D2] said her father, Alan, finished the basement portion of the house 
and wanted the kids to spend most of there [sic] time downstairs.  Susan and Alan would put the kids on a 
"guilt trip" much of the time.  [D2] 
said she and her sisters were not physically abused, but believes they were 
verbally abused.  [D2] now knows 
that the household bills aren't getting paid, which is why the house had 
recently been auctioned.

 
 
[D2] 
recalled seeing small mirrors and razor blades laying around in strange places 
of the house, including the bathroom and the night stand in Susan's 
bedroom.  Susan's appearance has 
also taken a change for the worse.  
[D2] has noticed sores appear on her mom's face and said Susan could be 
the "poster child" for methamphetamine abuse.  [D2] related her mother[']s appearance 
to the "meth make over" bill boards seen along roadways.

 
 
About 
eight (8) months ago, while [D2] was in her parents['] house, she saw a "glass 
globe with glass tubes sticking out", sitting on the living room table.  [D2's] mother told [D2] that it was a 
Humming Bird feeder.  [D2] knew her 
mother was lying, knowing what a humming bird feeder looks like.  She said the tubes sticking out of the 
globe looked like they were melted into the globe because of the brown burned 
look where the tubes attached to the globe.  [D2] said about two months ago she 
noticed that her father had boarded up the windows of the 
garage.

 
 
On 
Thursday, October 28, 2004, the Affiant met with Lori Horton at Janette 
Mydland's office.  Lori went to 
Janette's office because Lori was concerned about Susan and Alan's children, [D3 
and D4].  While speaking with Lori, 
Lori told the Affiant that she was very aware of the domestic disputes that 
Susan and Alan have.  Lori used to 
be fairly good friends with Susan until Lori became aware of Susan's drug 
use.  Susan now does not communicate 
with Lori much.  About two (2) 
months ago, Susan brought a bag containing clothes and other personal items to 
Lori's house.  Susan told Lori that 
she wanted to leave the bag there in case Susan had to leave her house suddenly 
because of all the fighting Susan and Alan do.  While Lori had the bag at her house, 
Lori found a small vial with white powder residue and a snort tube in the 
bag.  Lori described the vial to be 
about 1 ½ inches tall and clear with a black top.  Shortly after Lori found those items, 
she asked that Lori [sic] come take her bag back.  Lori said that this past summer, Susan 
admitted to Lori that Alan had been using methamphetamine in their 
house.

 
 
On 
Friday, October 29, 2004, [D2] spoke with the Affiant on the telephone.  [D4] had spent the night with [D2], and 
[D2] talked to [D4] about the living conditions at her parents['] house.  [D4] told [D2] that recently when people 
show up to the house, Susan and Alan go into the new computer room of the house, 
barricade the door and remain there for long periods of time.  [D4] knows they barricade the door 
because there is no lock on the door and when she had tried to get in the room, 
there was something in front of the door blocking entry.  [D4] said that there are still mirrors 
and razor blades in her parent[s'] bedroom on the night stand and in the 
bathroom.  Susan always has bruises 
on her body and tells [D4] that they come from her dad, Alan.  Susan and Alan aren't home much of the 
time[;] when they are home, [D4 and D3] spend most of the time in the basement 
away from Susan and Alan.  [D4] said 
that Susan never cooks meals[.]  
When [D4 and D3] aren't in school, and have school lunches, [D4 and D3] 
eat cereal and pop tarts most of the time because Susan does not make any 
meals.

 
 
Based on 
your affiant's training and experience, along with information shared with the 
affiant by other agents, it is known that those involved in the use of 
methamphetamine and other illegal powder drugs commonly use mirrors and razor 
blades to cut and prepare the drugs for ingesting.  Your affiant also knows from experience 
that those who commonly use methamphetamine, or other powder drugs, often times 
store and/or carry their drugs in small glass vials which are easily concealed 
on their person.  Your affiant also 
knows from experience that those who use methamphetamine, or other powder drugs, 
often ingest the drugs by using straws commonly referred to as "snort 
tubes".

 
 
Based on 
your affiant's training and experience, along with information shared with the 
affiant by other agents, substance abuse counselors and other professionals 
involved in the substance[] abuse field, that people involved in the chronic and 
frequent use of methamphetamine often times have open sores on their skin, 
exhibit signs of significant weight loss, are emotionally unstable and become so 
consumed by their desire to use the drug that they neglect their daily 
responsibilities, such as personal hygiene, the care of their children and other 
household responsibilities.

 
 
Based 
upon the given information, Your Affiant has probable cause to believe that 
Susan and Alan Crackenberger have been, and still are, involved in the use of 
controlled substances, and that at [their home], is evidence that will show that 
a crime was and still is being committed.  That evidence being[:] 1) controlled 
substances to wit:[] Methamphetamine[;] 2) pipes, vials, razor blades, mirrors, 
"snort tubes", plastic baggies and other paraphernalia commonly used in 
consumption of and/or storage of methamphetamine and other illegal drugs[;] 3) 
records, receipts, notes, ledgers, address/telephone books and other papers 
relating to the purchase of controlled substances and/or the identity of the 
source supply.

 
 
Further, 
your affiant Sayeth not.

 
 
[¶7]      We have often 
repeated that, because our state constitution requires an affidavit establishing 
probable cause before a search warrant is issued, Wyoming offers its 
citizens stronger protections against search and seizure than the United States 
Constitution.  Hixson v. State, 2001 WY 99, ¶ 5, 33 P.3d 154, 156 (Wyo. 2001).  However, 
like the United States Supreme Court, we have stressed that a judicial officer 
must ultimately come to a "practical, common-sense decision" when determining 
whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant.  Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 
103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983); and Rohda, ¶ 6, 142 P.3d  at 
1159.

 
 
            
The judicial officer who is presented with an application for a search 
warrant supported by an affidavit applies a "totality of circumstances" analysis 
in making an independent judgment whether probable cause exists for the issuance 
of the warrant.  See, e.g., Page, ¶ 9, 63 P.3d  at 909; Upton, 499 U.S.  at 732, 104 S. Ct.  at 2087; and Bonsness [v. State], 672 P.2d [1291,] 1293 
[Wyo. 1983]. 
 In making that independent 
judgment, the judicial officer is limited to the four corners of the supporting 
affidavit.  Page, ¶ 9, 63 P.3d  at 909.  The "totality of circumstances" analysis 
requires the judicial officer simply "to make a practical, common sense decision 
whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, 
including the veracity' and basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay 
information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime 
will be found in a particular place."  
Gates, 462 U.S.  at 238, 103 S. Ct.  at 2332; see Bonsness, 672 P.2d  
at 1293.

 
 

Rohda, ¶ 5, 
142 P.3d  at 1158-59.

 
 
[¶8]      Where an 
affidavit relies heavily on the hearsay statements of third parties, we have 
said:

 
 
As in 
the case of the primary source affiant, so in the case of the secondary source 
person, the judicial officer must know both that person's veracity or 
reliability and basis of knowledge.  
Because the secondary source person is not before the judicial officer 
and has not taken an oath, the judicial officer must have a reasonable 
substitute for an oath in order to be satisfied with the veracity or reliability 
of the secondary source person. 

 
 

Id., ¶ 8, 
142 P.3d  at 1159.

 
 
[¶9]      In the instant 
case, the appellant first argues that the district court erred in denying her 
motion to suppress because the informants relied upon in the affidavitD1, D2, 
and Ms. Hortonwere not sufficiently reliable and the basis of their knowledge 
was not clearly stated.  The State 
responds that the judicial officer who issued the search warrant had a 
substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed and, therefore, the 
district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.  

 
 
[¶10]   Unlike the majority of our 
suppression cases, the informants in the instant case are all identified citizen 
informants.  "Courts ordinarily deem 
citizen informants, in contrast to police informants, to be presumptively 
reliable sources of information."  
  Borgwardt v. State, 946 P.2d 805, 807 (Wyo. 
1997).  We have said that this 
presumption attaches, in part, because by identifying oneself, an informant is 
exposed "to possible criminal and civil prosecution if the report is 
false."  McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1076 
(Wyo. 
1999).  Beyond this presumption of 
reliability, we also note that the three informants in this case spoke with DFS 
and law enforcement out of a concern for the well-being of the appellant's minor 
children and each informant also gave independent information that corroborated 
the statements of the other informants.  
While the appellant correctly argues that reliability of informants alone 
does not establish probable cause to issue a search warrant, we note that the 
informants in the instant case appear to be reliable and that is an important 
factor that we weigh in examining the "totality of the 
circumstances."

 
 
[¶11]   An equally important factor is an 
informant's basis for the knowledge he or she provides law enforcement.  "[T]he affiant's affidavit must contain 
the raw data of that person's sense perceptionwhat that person saw, heard, or 
smelled firsthand.  It is from that 
secondary source's firsthand knowledge that the judicial officer will be able to 
draw conclusions about the existence or not of probable cause."  Rohda, ¶ 8, 142 P.3d  at 1160.  

 
 
[¶12]   The affidavit in the instant case 
established that the citizen informants had sufficient first-hand knowledge of 
the appellant's criminal activities to justify issuing a search warrant.  The information that established 
probable cause is as follows:

 
 

 
 
[¶13]   Under the "totality of the 
circumstances" approach, we find this information, when combined with the high 
degree of reliability of the informants and the experience and knowledge of the 
affiant, sufficient to establish probable cause that methamphetamine and 
methamphetamine paraphernalia would be found in the appellant's home.  The appellant's arguments that the 
informants have no specialized knowledge of methamphetamine and that there are 
other explanations for the appellant's change in behavior are also not well 
received.  While the informants may 
not have specialized knowledge of controlled substances and drug-related 
behavior, the affiant in the instant case did have such knowledge and properly 
applied it to the first-hand observations from the informants.  The affiant's knowledge and training, 
combined with the informants' first-hand knowledge, was sufficient to provide 
the judicial officer with a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause 
existed in the instant case to search the appellant's 
home.

 
 
[¶14]   The appellant also argues that the 
information contained in the search warrant affidavit was insufficient to 
establish probable cause because it was stale.  We agree with the State that the 
information contained in the affidavit was current enough for the judicial 
officer to issue the search warrant.

 
 
The 
general rule is that the facts and circumstances set forth in an affidavit 
submitted in support of the issuance of a search warrant should be current and 
timely so as to indicate that the premises, person, place, or thing to be 
searched presently contains the fruits or evidence of the 
crime.

 
 

Cordova 
v. State, 2001 
WY 96, ¶ 21, 33 P.3d 142, 150 (Wyo. 2001).

 
 
Generally, 
"timeliness depends on the nature of the criminal activity, the length of the 
activity, and the nature of the property to be seized.'"  Id. at ¶ 19, 33 P.3d  at 150 
(quoting Guerra v. State, 897 P.2d 447, 454 (Wyo. 
1995)).  In the instant case, 
however, we need not delve too deeply into the preceding factors because the 
appellant's argument on appeal ignores the information provided to law 
enforcement from D4, which information indicated that during the previous week, 
her parents' behavior had continued to worsen and razor blades and mirrors could 
still be found around the house.  
The information from D4 is significant because, when viewed in light of 
the other information contained in the affidavit, it tended to indicate that the 
appellant had been using methamphetamine for as many as five years, and there 
was probable cause to believe that the use was continuing up to the time when 
the search warrant was issued.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶15]   Applying the "totality of the 
circumstances" test to the information contained in the search warrant 
affidavit, the judicial officer did not err in concluding that probable cause 
existed to issue the search warrant.  
The informants were sufficiently reliable and demonstrated a basis for 
their knowledge of the appellant's criminal activities; further, the information 
demonstrated that there was probable cause to believe that the appellant's 
methamphetamine use was continuing at the time the search warrant was issued, 
therefore, the information was not stale.

 
 
[¶16]   Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i) states, in pertinent part:

 
 
(c)   It is unlawful for any person 
knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance . . . except as 
otherwise authorized by this act.  
Any person who violates this subsection:

(i) And 
has in his possession a controlled substance in the amount set forth in this 
paragraph is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more 
than twelve (12) months, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars 
($1,000.00), or both.

 
 

2Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 6-4-405(b) states:

 
 
(b)   No person having the care or 
custody of a child shall knowingly and willfully permit the child to remain in a 
room, dwelling or vehicle where that person knows that methamphetamine is 
possessed, stored or ingested.