Case Title: State v. Boksham

Citation: 370 So. 2d 491

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
370 So. 2d 491 (1979) STATE of Louisiana v. Richard G. BOKSHAM. STATE of Louisiana v. Edward BOGLE, Robert M. Hoskins, Jr., Thomas M. Gorman. Nos. 62873, 62433. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 5, 1979. *492 Ferdinand J. Kleppner, Grisbaum & Kleppner, Metairie, Edwin Marger, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellants-relators. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., William C. Pegues, III, Dist. Atty., David W. Burton, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee-respondent. CUTRER, Justice Ad Hoc.[*] Defendants Richard G. Boksham, Edward Bogle, Robert M. Hoskins, Jr., and Thomas M. Gorman, together with Christopher R. Garrett, were jointly charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of La.R.S. 40:966. After a bench trial, defendants Bogle, Hoskins and Gorman were found guilty of the charged offense, defendant Boksham was found guilty of the lesser offense of possession of marijuana, and Garrett was acquitted. Defendants Gorman and Bogle were each sentenced to serve seven and one-half years at hard labor and each fined fifteen thousand dollars, on default *493 to serve an additional year. Defendant Hoskins was sentenced to serve five years at hard labor and fined fifteen thousand dollars, on default to serve an additional year. Defendant Boksham was sentenced to serve six months in the parish jail and fined five hundred dollars, on default to serve one hundred days in the parish jail. Defendants Bogle, Hoskins and Gorman have appealed; we granted defendant Boksham's application for supervisory writs[1] in order to consider conjointly their corresponding claims. Their consolidated brief raises 115 assignments of error in 31 arguments relating to the issuance of a search warrant and various other alleged errors in the proceedings. Because we find merit to defendants' assignments of error challenging the probable cause finding for the issuance of the search warrant, we pretermit consideration of defendants' other assignments of error. The context facts were as follows: On June 27, 1977, a search warrant was issued for the search of a Beauregard Parish farm, located east of Bundicks Lake, belonging to defendant Gorman. In executing the warrant that day, state and local law enforcement officers searched the farm house and several vehicles located on the property, including three cargo-type trucks parked on the premises. They seized almost 3,000 pounds of bailed marijuana from the cargo area of one of the trucks. The search of the residence yielded sums of United States and Canadian currency and scales presumably used to weigh the marijuana, as well as a small amount of marijuana and some cigarette rolling papers. The occupants of the residence at the time of the search, Richard Boksham, Robert Hoskins, Jr., Thomas Gorman and Christopher Garrett, were arrested. Edward Bogle, who was not on the farm at the time of the search, was also arrested. The investigation leading to the search was initiated by U. S. Customs officials who, suspecting that marijuana was being smuggled into Southwest Louisiana, contacted state and local officials and requested their assistance in the surveillance activities. Surveillance of the Beauregard Parish farm commenced June 17, 1977, when a state trooper followed, from Lake Charles to the farm, a vehicle suspected of being involved in the illegal drug traffic. Officers then set up a surveillance post in a camper near the farm driveway entrance in order to monitor incoming and outgoing traffic. Involved in the surveillance activity were several officers who logged their observations of the driveway traffic. Four cargo-type trucks, as well as pickup trucks and automobiles, were observed entering and leaving the farm driveway. Some of the vehicles were observed going to and from a LaRose warehouse. Surveillance of the driveway, however, revealed no apparent illegal activity. On June 25, 1977, at about 10:16 P.M., officers noted that a Ryder rental cargo truck entered the farm. It left the farm the next morning, under the surveillance of Louisiana and Texas law enforcement officials who followed it to a motel in Austin, Texas, and then to a farm southwest of Austin. About a half-hour after the truck departed from the Texas farm, Texas officials stopped and searched it. Marijuana sweepings and the odor of marijuana were noted by officers. On the next day, June 27, 1977, Louisiana officials related the following information in their application for the search warrant which resulted in the seizure of bulk marijuana from the Beauregard Parish farm and the arrest of defendants: Sworn To and Subscribed Before Me This 27 Day of June , 19 77 at 11:15 A.M. Defendants contend that the affidavit did not furnish probable cause for a search of the Beauregard Parish farm. Article I, Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides in part: A search warrant may not be issued upon an affidavit indicating that the affiant has reasonable cause to suspect that *496 the object of the search is on the premises. The affidavit must recite facts establishing to the satisfaction of the judge who issues the search warrant that probable cause exists to search the premises for the object sought. State v. Paciera, 290 So. 2d 681 (La.1974). Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the affiant's knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that evidence or contraband may be found at the place to be searched. State v. Koncir, 367 So. 2d 365 (La.1979); State v. Turnipseed, 362 So. 2d 486 (La.1978); State v. Richards, 357 So. 2d 1128 (La.1978). When information contained within the warrant application is based on hearsay, underlying information supporting the credibility of the informant and the reliability of the information must also be alleged. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964); State v. Babbitt, 363 So. 2d 690 (La.1978); State v. Richards, 357 So. 2d 1128 (La.1978). A careful review of the affidavit in light of the above standards discloses the deceptiveness of its length and the substantiality of its content. First, the affidavit states that "U.S. Customs Officials had under investigation a group of known smugglers" (emphasis supplied) who had allegedly obtained a warehouse in Larose and the farm in Beauregard Parish. The fact that this hearsay information was supplied by U.S. Customs agents may alone support the credibility of the informants. No facts, however, are alleged which indicate how it was known that the suspected parties were "smugglers" or that the warehouse had been obtained by them. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the affiants, Edsel W. Smith and Jodie Dowden, testified that they had previously met with U.S. Customs Officers Gary Thompson and Harry Benjamin. Smith and Dowden could not recall if the Customs officers used the words "known smugglers." Also, Smith and Dowden stated that the Customs officials did not give them any facts upon which they may have concluded that they had "known smugglers" under surveillance. The affiants were not given any information as to the suspected persons' backgrounds, activities, prior convictions or arrests, that would cast any light on those persons as having a reputation of engaging in smuggling activity. Affiant Joe Bartlett did not meet with the Customs officials but received his information, as to that meeting, from state police officers who did talk with the Customs officials. While the credibility of the informants (the Customs officials) may be apparent from the face of the affidavit, there are no facts presented to support the credibility of the information. Therefore, it must be omitted in considering whether the affidavit supports probable cause. See State v. Hysell, 364 So. 2d 1300 (La.1978); State v. Joseph, 351 So. 2d 1162 (La.1977). Without creditable information that "known smugglers" were behind the vehicular traffic to and from the LaRose warehouse and the Beauregard Parish farm, that activity sheds its suspicious character, as it is equally consistent with the operation of a working farm. (Indeed, the transcript indicates that the site was being legitimately worked and developed by its occupants.) The only other information contained in the affidavit linking the Beauregard Parish farm with illegal activity are the allegations, apparently within the affiants' personal knowledge, that a Ryder rental truck, seen entering the farm on June 25, 1977, and leaving the farm the following day, was searched after it departed from a farm near Austin, Texas, whereupon marijuana sweepings and the odor of marijuana were detected. Also, the affiants alleged that the search of other vehicles as they left the Texas farm resulted in the seizure of marijuana, leading to the issuance of a Texas search warrant resulting in the seizure of large quantities of marijuana from the Austin, Texas farm. While the legality of the Texas searches leading to this information appears somewhat suspect, we need not *497 reach this issue, nor the standing of defendants to challenge these searches, since the affidavit under consideration does not justify a finding of probable cause for the search of the Beauregard Parish farm, even assuming that the Texas information was validly obtained. The sole link between the Texas marijuana seizures and the Beauregard Parish farm was the Ryder rental truck in which marijuana sweepings were found in Texas.[2] The only connection between the truck and the Beauregard Parish farm is that it stopped at the farm from some unknown point on the night of June 25, 1977, and departed therefrom the next morning. There was no indication whether the truck was loaded or unloaded with marijuana on the farm, nor whether it was driven by an occupant of the farm. Thus, there were no allegations which would lead a reasonable person to believe that marijuana could be found on the farm. All that was present were the mere suspicions[3] of officers that the truck was loaded (or unloaded) on the Beauregard Parish farm and that marijuana still could be found there. Unsupported suspicions are not sufficient to constitute probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. See State v. Koncir, supra; State v. Valentine, 355 So. 2d 897 (La.1978). The allegations linking the Ryder rental truck with the Beauregard Parish farm can be compared to those considered in State v. Valentine, 355 So. 2d 897 (La.1978). There the affiant alleged that he saw his informant go to the front door (but not inside) of the residence sought to be searched. He also alleged that the affiant gave him marijuana upon his return. This court in holding the issuance of the warrant improper observed that the affiant did not establish that the marijuana came from the residence. Even if it could be discerned from the allegation that the marijuana came from the residence, there was no allegation that any more marijuana could be found there. Likewise, in this case, the fact that the marijuana sweepings found in Texas after the truck had entered a Texas farm out of the sight of officers, did not indicate that the substance came from the Beauregard Parish farm, or if it did, that any more of the substance could be found there. Since the affidavit did not establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion to suppress and in admitting all of the evidence yielded by the search at trial. Accordingly, defendants' convictions and sentences are reversed and the two consolidated cases are remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. SUMMERS, C. J., dissents. [*] Judge Cecil C. Cutrer of the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, participated in this decision as Associate Justice Ad Hoc. [1] Possession of marijuana (first offense) is punishable by a maximum sentence of six months and/or a fine of up to five hundred dollars, R.S. 40:966(D); thus a conviction for that offense is nonappealable under Article V, Section 5(D) of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution. [2] It should be noted that the Ryder truck searched in Texas was not among those vehicles searched on the Beauregard Parish farm. [3] On the last page of the affidavit, immediately above the description of the property, the affidavit states as follows: "As a result of the above, the Beauregard Parish farm, or residence, is suspected to [be] a distribution point for the shipment of marijuana. [emphasis supplied]