Case Title: Bonsness v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1983-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Bonsness v. State1983 WY 125672 P.2d 1291Case Number: 83-94Case Number: 83-94Decided: 12/08/1983Supreme Court of Wyoming
CHAD 
BONSNESS, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court, Campbell County, Joseph F. Maier, 
J.

 
 
Leonard 
D. Munker, State Public Defender, Wyo. Public Defender Program, Sylvia Lee 
Hackl, Appellate Counsel, Wyo. Public Defender Program, Richard S. Rideout, 
Asst. Public Defender, Cheyenne, for 
appellant.

 
 
A.G. 
McClintock, Atty. Gen.; Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen.; John W. Renneisen, 
Senior Asst. Atty. Gen.; Tom Maurer, Legal Intern, Cheyenne, for appellee.

 
 
Before 
ROONEY, C.J., THOMAS, BROWN, and 
CARDINE, JJ., and KAIL, District Judge.

 
 

BROWN, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     Appellant Chad Bonsness 
was convicted of possession of a controlled substance after police officers, 
executing a search warrant, discovered marijuana and other contraband in his 
apartment. Before and during trial, Bonsness moved to suppress evidence seized 
during the search due to an allegedly defective affidavit which supported the 
search warrant. The district court denied the motion to 
suppress.

 
 

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

 
 

[¶3.]     On October 29, 1982, 
Detective Martin Wozniak of the Gillette Police Department arrested and 
questioned Richard Bernier about an attempted vehicular break-in. During the 
questioning, Detective Wozniak learned that Bernier had purchased a "baggie of 
marijuana" from an individual whom he knew as "Chad," and that the purchase 
occurred at Chad's apartment. Bernier took the detective to the vicinity of 
appellant's apartment, identified the car outside the apartment as belonging to 
appellant, and told the detective that appellant would be acquiring more 
marijuana that same day.

 
 

[¶4.]     Detective Wozniak 
checked the registration of the vehicle identified by Bernier as belonging to 
appellant and found that it belonged to Bonsness' parents. The detective then 
contacted Detective Tony Shinakonis, who assisted him in obtaining a positive 
photographic identification of appellant from Bernier. Detective Shinakonis 
informed Detective Wozniak that he had previously received four reliable and 
independent reports of appellant selling marijuana to high school 
students.

 
 

[¶5.]     Detective Wozniak made 
an affidavit containing the above-mentioned facts and submitted it to the 
magistrate. The magistrate found probable cause to believe that appellant's 
apartment would contain illegal contraband and issued a search warrant. 
Thereafter a search was conducted, and illegal contraband was found in 
appellant's apartment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the affidavit in 
support of the search warrant was sufficient upon its face to support the 
issuance of the search warrant. We hold that it was.

 
 

[¶6.]     In order to issue a 
proper search warrant, a magistrate must have a "substantial basis" for 
concluding that probable cause exists. A magistrate's determination of probable 
cause should be paid great deference. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697, 78 A.L.R.2d 233 (1960).

 
 

[¶7.]     The Wyoming 
Constitution requires that a search warrant be issued only upon a showing of 
probable cause.1 Probable cause must be supported by 
an affidavit which supplies the issuing officer with sufficient information to 
make an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. Ostrowski v. State, Wyo., 665 P.2d 471 
(1983). The affidavit in support of the warrant, therefore, must include more 
than bare conclusions of the affiant. Facts which lead the affiant to believe 
that a warrant is justified must be presented in the affidavit. The test for 
determining the existence of probable cause is whether a factual situation is 
sufficient to warrant a reasonably cautious or prudent man to believe that a 
crime was being committed or that one had been committed. Smith v. State, Wyo., 
557 P.2d 130 (1976). This test requires that the issuing officer weigh and 
consider all of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a 
warrant.

 
 

[¶8.]     The United States 
Supreme Court has recently adopted this view by holding that the sufficiency of 
a probable cause determination is to be measured by the "totality of the 
circumstances." Illinois v. Gates, 
___ U.S. ___, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, (1983). Although this decision had 
not been handed down at the time the magistrate made his finding of probable 
cause, it does not alter our disposition under Wyoming law. We have never 
specifically adopted the "two-pronged test" established by the United States 
Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 
378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964); and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 
89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969). We reject the technical and rigid 
requirements set out in Aguilar and Spinelli. The magistrate acted properly 
under Wyoming law and the decision in Illinois v. Gates, supra, supports this 
holding.

 
 

[¶9.]     In this case Detective 
Wozniak investigated and verified several of the assertions made by Richard 
Bernier before making the affidavit. The detective verified Bernier's 
identification of the appellant, his car, and his place of residence. Therefore, 
the affiant's verification of some of Bernier's information increased Bernier's 
credibility as an informant. As the Supreme Court has said, if "an informant is 
right about some things, he is more likely right about other things." Illinois v. Gates, 
supra.

 
 

[¶10.]  Richard Bernier's statement to Detective 
Wozniak that he had purchased marijuana from "Chad" is a statement against 
Bernier's penal interest. Such admissions of crime "carry their own indicia of 
credibility - sufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause to 
search." United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 91 S. Ct. 2075, 2082, 29 L. Ed. 2d 723, 734 (1971). Bernier's 
statement also shows firsthand knowledge of criminal activity. In Illinois v. Gates, supra, the court 
pointed out that even if there is some doubt as to the informant's motives, his 
detailed description of criminal activity along with his statement that the 
event was observed firsthand, entitles his "tip" to carry greater weight than it 
might otherwise. Illinois v. Gates, 
supra. These factors further enhance the credibility of Bernier's 
statements.

 
 

[¶11.]  The statement in the affidavit that 
Detective Shinakonis had four "reliable and independent" reports that Chad 
Bonsness was selling marijuana to high school students is a bare conclusion 
unsupported by underlying facts. There is no doubt the affiant included this 
statement to strengthen his allegation that appellant was involved in illegal 
drug activities. This conclusion does not, however, defeat the probable cause 
which is supported by the other facts in the affidavit. Croker v. State, Wyo., 477 P.2d 122 
(1970).

 
 

[¶12.]  Thus, the investigation and verification 
of Bernier's statements, coupled with the fact that his statements were against 
his penal interest, and were derived from his firsthand knowledge of the 
criminal acts in question, support the magistrate's finding of probable cause. 
We affirm the magistrate's decision.

 
 

THOMAS, 
J., specially concurring.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1 
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and 
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no 
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, 
particularly describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be 
seized." Art. 1, § 4, Wyoming Constitution.

 
 

THOMAS, 
Justice, specially concurring.

 
 

[¶13.]  I am satisfied with the resolution of 
this case as reflected by the decision to affirm in the majority opinion. 
Because I have some difficulty with the discussion of the statement in the 
affidavit filed by Detective Wozniak reflecting that Detective Shinakonis had 
"reliable and independent reports" that the appellant was selling marijuana to 
high school students, I have concluded to set forth my views on that particular 
matter.

 
 

[¶14.]  The majority conclusion characterizes 
that statement as a bare conclusion unsupported by underlying facts. It does not 
seem that a report of hearsay information is a bare conclusion unsupported by 
underlying facts as exemplified by the statement in the affidavit in issue in Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 
54 S. Ct. 11, 78 L. Ed. 159 (1933). In the context of the espoused 
"totality-of-the-circumstances" test this information has a significant role and 
certainly should not be eschewed. I concede that standing alone the statement 
would not pass muster under the two-pronged test found in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 
89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969), and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964), because it does not set forth in the context of the 
hearsay information the underlying circumstances sufficiently to enable a 
magistrate to evaluate the validity of the informant's statement and does not 
furnish the magistrate with information permitting him to evaluate the 
credibility of the informant. In this instance, however, the information does 
not stand alone, but is cumulative, although not repetitive, with respect to 
other information in the affidavit. For me that is the essence of the 
"totality-of-the-circumstances" test as articulated in Illinois v. Gates, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983), which I regard as an effective restatement of 
prior Wyoming law.

 
 

[¶15.]  Consequently, I would certainly permit 
the magistrate to consider such information under a "totality-of-the 
circumstances" test in much the same sense that similar information was found 
acceptable in Croker v. State, Wyo., 
477 P.2d 122 (1970). It buttressed other information in the affidavit, and at 
this juncture I probably would simply eliminate the language from Croker 
indicating that it could be justified because it was not prejudicial to the 
defendant. I would afford such information an affirmative role under a 
"totality-of-the circumstances" test.