Case Title: State v. Kowal

Citation: 423 A.2d 1380

Docket Number: 

State: rhode-island

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
423 A.2d 1380 (1980) STATE v. Frank Jacob KOWAL. No. 79-105-C.A. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. December 9, 1980. Dennis J. Roberts, II, Atty. Gen., Faith A. LaSalle, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff. John Tramonti, Jr., Providence, Griffin & Higgins, Kirk Y. Griffin, Geline W. Williams, Boston, Mass., for defendant. WEISBERGER, Justice. This case comes before us on appeal by the defendant, Frank Jacob Kowal, from a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court on six counts of illegal possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver, and one count of receiving stolen goods, to wit, assorted pharmaceutical drugs and implements of a value in excess of $500 in violation of G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-41-2. The single issue raised on appeal is the validity of a search warrant which authorized the search of "[a] one story wood frame dwelling color white, numbered 9 Anderson Avenue, Coventry, R.I." The search warrant is challenged on the ground that it fails to describe with particularity the place for which probable cause to search had been established. The defendant asserts that the instant search warrant failed properly to limit the scope of the search. We are of the opinion that this search warrant described the premises to be searched and the things to be seized with reasonable specificity in the light of the probable cause presented to the issuing Justice *1381 of the District Court. The facts pertaining to the resolution of this issue are as follows. In September 1976, more than 500,000 dosage units of various controlled substances were stolen from the Wyeth Laboratories in Andover, Massachusetts. Detective Sergeant Richard P. Sullivan, who was then in charge of the narcotics unit of the Rhode Island State Police, became engaged in an investigation together with officers of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration in order to locate this quantity of drugs, whose approximate wholesale value was estimated at $134,000. As a culmination of his investigation, Sergeant Sullivan applied for a search warrant and in support of his application submitted an affidavit, which reads in pertinent part: The defendant argues that the affidavit clearly discloses that this dwelling house was divided into two units; the upper level was rented to one Barbara Cipolla, and the defendant retained jurisdiction over the cellar level for his own personal and business storage. He thus contends that a search warrant directed to the entire dwelling unit was a violation of the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. I, sec. 6 of the Declaration of Rights contained in the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island, as well as G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-5-3,[1] all of which require that every search warrant shall particularly describe the place to be searched. State v. Joseph, 114 R.I. 596, 337 A.2d 523 (1975), reiterated the proposition that the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant particularly to describe "the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." We noted that the purpose of this requirement was to make a general search impossible. Id. at 604, 337 A.2d at 527-28. Earlier, in State v. Costakos, 101 R.I. 692, 226 A.2d 695 (1967), we considered the application of this principle to a multiple dwelling. We stated therein that a search warrant must describe the place to be searched both "particularly" and "as nearly as may be." Id. at 694, 226 A.2d at 696. In analyzing the problem in Costakos, we quoted a passage from Cornelius, Search and Seizure § 205 at 295 (2d ed. 1930), which is equally pertinent in resolution of the issue in the case at bar: In the case at bar, although the affidavit indicated that defendant Kowal reserved jurisdiction over the basement for storage purposes, the affidavit also indicated that an informant went to the house accompanied by another individual who was said to enter the house and return with a Tubex syringe that was identified by the informant as part of the stolen shipment. This portion of the affidavit could readily be construed as asserting his entry into the portion of the house above the level of the cellar. Further, the statements in the affidavit could give rise to the inference that a very large quantity of stolen drugs had been stored in this dwelling house under circumstances that would support probable cause to believe that both occupants were involved in the illegal enterprise. *1383 We recently observed in State v. Read, R.I., 416 A.2d 684 (1980) that "a judicial officer may * * * draw inferences in order to reach a determination of probable cause which might not be justified if utilized in support of a judgment of conviction." Id. 416 A.2d at 690. When the affidavit is viewed as a whole, the allegations therein amply support the inference drawn by the issuing justice that the entire dwelling unit and both occupants were involved in the storage of these stolen drugs. Further, the issuing justice could infer on the basis of ordinary experience in the facts of life that a person engaged in the storage of a great quantity of stolen narcotics and related substances would not place it in a portion of a single-family dwelling house without having first taken the precaution of making a confederate of his tenant. In drawing these inferences from the affidavit, the justice was following the principle that "affidavits for search warrants * * * must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion." United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S. Ct. 741, 746, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, 689 (1965). The defendant vigorously argues, however, that subsequent events showed that the tenant was not a party to this illegal transaction. In the course of the search, stolen drugs were found in the basement-level garage in the area retained by defendant, but no drugs were found in that portion of the house rented to the tenant. Although she was initially arrested, charges against her were ultimately dismissed. The Supreme Court of the United States tersely stated in Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104, 80 S. Ct. 168, 172, 4 L. Ed. 2d 134, 139 (1959) that "an arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses." In respect to a search warrant, similarly, probable cause must exist on the basis of information disclosed to the magistrate prior to the search. It cannot be buttressed by what the search discloses. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969). The affidavit in support of the warrant must rest upon the foundation of its own adequacy without supplementary information obtained thereafter. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S. Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1971). Conversely, the search warrant may not be challenged as issued without probable cause merely because one or more of the persons toward whom the probable cause pointed turned out ultimately to be innocent. Any contrary rule would require the evidentiary support necessary for probable cause to rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a concept that has been clearly rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States and by this court. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 584, 91 S. Ct. 2075, 2082, 29 L. Ed. 2d 723, 734 (1971); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949); State v. Read, R.I., 416 A.2d at 689; State v. Joseph, 114 R.I. 596, 601, 337 A.2d 523, 526 (1975); State v. Nerney, 110 R.I. 364, 365, 292 A.2d 882, 883 (1972). Consequently, the probable cause that supported the issuance of the warrant and the description contained therein could not be extinguished by subsequent findings. Since the issuing justice had probable cause to believe that the entire dwelling unit contained stolen controlled substances, the description set forth in the warrant which included the entire one-story wood-frame dwelling and identified the two occupants was solidly based upon material in the affidavit "to connect each one of the occupants of the premises with the alleged unlawful act." Cornelius, Search and Seizure, supra at 496. Therefore, the trial justice was correct in denying the motion to suppress. In light of our determination of this issue, it will be unnecessary to address the question raised by the state at oral argument concerning the standing of this defendant to challenge the description of the premises contained in the warrant. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, and the papers in the case may be remitted to the Superior Court. [1] Although the defendant relies upon the particularity requirement in G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-5-3, that provision was repealed by P.L. 1972, ch. 169, § 13. We note, however, that a similar particularity provision is now contained in Super.R.Crim.P. 41(c), which reads in pertinent part: "A warrant shall issue only on written application * * * specifically designating the place to be searched, the owner or occupant thereof, if known to the affiant, and the person or thing to be searched for, and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant."