Case Title: State v. Weiss

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                          Nos. 87-214 and 88-106


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Michael I. Weiss                             Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
and Jeffrey Weiss
                                             April Term, 1989


Michael S. Kupersmith, J.  (87-214)

Joseph J. Wolchik, J.  (88-106)

Philip H. White, Orleans County State's Attorney, Newport, and Thomas M.
   Kelley, Drug Prosecutor, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for
   plaintiff-appellant

Rubin, Rona, Kidney & Myer, Barre, for defendant-appellee Michael Weiss

Gaston, Durrance & Fairbanks, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee Jeffrey
   Weiss



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Dooley and  Morse, JJ., and Katz, D.J.,
          Specially Assigned



     PECK, J.  This interlocutory appeal turns on whether the affidavits in
support of a search warrant issued by Judge Pineles for the residence of
defendant Michael Weiss set forth facts establishing probable cause and
whether Judge Pineles had reasonable cause to authorize a nighttime search
of the premises.  See State v. Brown, 151 Vt. 533, 535, 562 A.2d 1057, 1058
(1989) (critical inquiry for judge issuing warrant is whether, taking
information as true, illegal materials would more likely than not be found
at residence).
     Two defendants, Jeffrey and Michael Weiss, were charged together in
September of 1986 for possession and cultivation of marijuana, 18 V.S.A. {{
4224(f)(1)(B), 4224(g).  Some of the evidence against them was obtained
during a nighttime search of the Weiss residence.  Shortly after they were
arraigned, the trial court dismissed the charges against Jeffrey Weiss
because the affidavit of probable cause submitted in support of the
Information against him failed to establish probable cause.  In response to
defendant Michael Weiss' pretrial motions, Judge Fisher reviewed the search
warrant application and granted his motion to suppress the evidence obtained
in the execution of the search warrant.
     On July 20, 1987, the State filed six affidavits in support of an
Information recharging Jeffrey Weiss.  The affidavits contained information
known to the officers at the time of arrest, but not included in the
original affidavit.  They also provided a list of items seized at Michael
Weiss' residence, and the sworn testimony of Lisa Weiss that her son
Jeffrey stored belongings at the residence and that he told her all the
marijuana belonged to him.
     Ruling on defendant Jeffrey Weiss' pretrial motion to suppress, Judge
Wolchik concluded, as had Judge Fisher, that the evidence found at defendant
Michael Weiss' residence should be suppressed due to the insufficiency of
the affidavits in support of the search warrant application.  The resolution
of the validity of the search affects the cases against both defendants.
Accordingly, we accepted the parties' stipulation that these two cases be
consolidated for this appeal.
     The State filed this interlocutory appeal claiming that the affidavits
support the initial warrant issued by Judge Pineles.  The State argues in
the alternative that the exclusionary rule should not bar the admission of
the seized evidence because the police executed the warrant in "good faith."
Since we believe that the affidavits set forth substantial evidence in
support of the warrant and that a nighttime search was appropriate, we
reverse and therefore do not reach the question of "good faith."  A summary
of the key facts from the affidavits follows.
     On September 22, 1986, Trooper Whitcomb suspected the cultivation of
marijuana in the town of Albany, one-half mile southeast of the intersection
of Town Highway #1 and Town Highway #3, based on his aerial observation of
the area.  Later that day, he reported this to Trooper Roberts.  Ten days
later, on October 2, 1986, both Whitcomb and Roberts returned to the area on
foot and found more than thirty cultivated marijuana plants tied to stakes,
with a white granular substance that they suspected was fertilizer sprinkled
at the base of each plant.  They checked the area for persons or fresh
tracks of persons who may have been tending the plants, but found none.
     One hour later, they returned with two other Troopers, Lt. Gilbert and
Sgt. White, to uproot the marijuana plants.  There they found defendants,
Michael Weiss and his son Jeffrey Weiss, and several items that had not been
there earlier, including two black plastic garbage bags, a brown plastic
garbage can containing manicured marijuana residue, a camouflage nylon bag
with shoulder straps, shears, and a loaded shotgun.  They arrested
defendants on charges of possession, manufacturing, and cultivation of
marijuana, and gave them Miranda warnings.  Defendant Michael Weiss made
three incriminating statements after invoking his right to counsel: (1) that
he owned 390 acres of land in the town of Albany; (2) that he lived on the
land that he owned; and (3) that his son did not need a hunting license on
the land where the marijuana plot was located.  The first two statements
were made in response to police questioning.  All three statements were
included in the affidavits submitted in support of the search warrant
application.
     Defendants were placed in custody, and the Troopers applied for a
search warrant for the residence of defendant Michael Weiss located in the
town of Albany.  After 10:00 p.m. that same evening, Judge Pineles ordered
the search to be conducted "at any time" within the next three days.  At
midnight on October 2, 1986, when no one was home, the police entered the
house through a second-story window.  They searched the house and found
several incriminating items.  Lisa Weiss -- wife of defendant Michael Weiss
and mother of defendant Jeffrey Weiss --  returned home at approximately
1:00 a.m. and answered police questions.
     After the pretrial suppression hearing, the court suppressed the first
two statements made by defendant Michael Weiss.  After excising the two
statements from the affidavits, it found no probable cause for the search.
The court reasoned that once the incriminating statements were excised, one
had to infer that Michael Weiss possessed cultivation materials, and further
infer that he kept the cultivation materials at his house.  "[I]nferences
based on inferences," in the court's view, did not support a ruling based on
"substantial evidence" that the specified items were presently at the
residence.  In particular, the court stated:
          There is no information provided in any of the material
          supporting the application that would in any way tie the
          defendant's residence with the cultivation operation[,]
          . . . no statement of the distance between the plot in
          which the defendant was found, and his home[,] . . .
          no information about the proximity of other structures
          or residences to the plot[,] . . . no assertion that a
          path of any kind leads between the plot and the
          residence[, and] . . . no allegation that anyone has
          ever observed, or even heard rumors that any storing of
          the materials, processing, cultivating or transacting of
          business involving the marijuana has ever been carried
          out at the residence.
As a result, the seized evidence was suppressed.
                                   I.
     Taking the information in the affidavits as true and excising the two
incriminating statements, the propriety of the search warrant issuance turns
on whether there was substantial evidence supporting the warrant.  State v.
Potter, 148 Vt. 53, 60,