Case Title: IN THE INTEREST OF TJS V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-04-11

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE INTEREST OF TJS V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2005 WY 68113 P.3d 1054Case Number: No. C-04-11Decided: 06/15/2005
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
IN THE 
INTEREST OF TJS, a minor child,

Appellant 
(Defendant),         

 
 
v.         

 
 
THE STATE 
OF WYOMING,           
                          

Appellee 
(Plaintiff).   

 
 
Appeal from 
the DistrictCourtofHot 
SpringsCounty

The 
Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge

 
 
 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Ken Koski, 
State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel. 

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick J. 
Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant 
Attorney General.   

            

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      TJS, a minor, was 
found guilty of delivering a controlled substance in violation of Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2003) and was determined to be a "delinquent 
child" as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-201(a)(x) (LexisNexis 2003).  In this appeal, TJS contends that a 
search warrant was issued without probable cause and that the district court 
erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search of his 
residence authorized by the warrant.  
We affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      TJS states his 
solitary issue on appeal as:

 
 
Whether the 
officer who issued the search warrant erred as a matter of law because the 
accompanying affidavit lacked sufficient and adequate probable 
cause.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Al Nelson is an 
officer with the Thermopolis Police Department.  On December 3, 2003, he was asked by the 
chief of police to interview a confidential informant (CI).  The CI was a 14 year old minor who 
allegedly had information concerning marijuana use by several high school 
students during their school lunch break.

 
 
[¶4]      Officer Nelson 
and another Thermopolis police officer, Jason Converse, interviewed CI on 
December 3, 2003.  The interview was 
video and audio taped.  A parent of 
CI watched and listened to the interview from a location in the dispatch office. 

 
 
[¶5]      During the 
interview, CI advised the officer that he had smoked marijuana on several 
occasions at the home of TJS, with TJS and other juveniles.  The most recent incident occurred on 
December 2, 2003, the day before the interview.  CI described the house, the location of 
the house, the amount of marijuana, the location of the marijuana, the drug 
paraphernalia used and the location of the paraphernalia. 

 
 
[¶6]      The next day, 
Officers Nelson and Martinez conducted surveillance of the 
residence.  They located the 
residence described by CI.  The 
residence was the color described by CI.  
During their surveillance, at 11:41 a.m., they observed TJS and three 
other juveniles enter the residence.  
The juveniles remained in the residence for approximately 15 minutes 
before leaving in the same vehicle in which they had arrived.   

 
 
[¶7]      Later that day, 
Officer Nelson sought and obtained a search warrant for the premises.  He signed an affidavit in support of his 
request for the warrant.  The 
following day, December 5, 2003, the warrant was executed.

 
 
[¶8]      During the search 
of TJS's home, marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found.  A petition to adjudicate TJS delinquent 
was filed.  TJS subsequently filed a 
motion to suppress claiming that the search warrant was not supported by 
probable cause.  The motion was 
denied and the juvenile action proceeded to hearing.  After hearing, TJS was found to have 
unlawfully delivered marijuana and was adjudicated delinquent based on such 
finding.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶9]      We apply a de 
novo standard of review when evaluating the issuance of a search warrant 
under Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.  Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, 
¶9, 67 P.3d 1207, ¶9 (Wyo. 2003).  
We have previously stated:

 
 
Indeed, 
de novo review is particularly appropriate under these 
circumstances.  The reasons which 
normally underlie deferring to the district court's denial of a motion to 
suppressits ability to assess the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the 
evidenc e, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions at the 
hearing on the motion--are absent when reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit 
to support a determination of probable cause.  Because art. 1, § 4 requires that all 
information the issuing officer relied upon to make the determination be 
included within the affidavit, this court is in essentially the same position as 
the issuing magistrate.   

 
 

Cordova v. 
State, 2001 WY 96, 
¶10, 33 P.3d 142, ¶10 (Wyo. 2001). 1

 
 
[¶10]   An affidavit presented in support 
of a search warrant is presumed valid.  
Page v. State, 2003 WY 23, ¶9, 63 P.3d 904, ¶9 (Wyo. 2003).  Search warrant affidavits are tested by 
a less vigorous standard than those governing the admissibility of evidence at 
trial.  Id.  We interpret a search warrant affidavit 
"in its totality in a commonsense and realistic fashion.'"  Cordova, ¶29.  Because of the desire to encourage law 
enforcement personnel to seek warrants, any doubt should be resolved by 
sustaining the search.  Page, 
¶9 (citing Hixson v. State,  2001 WY 99, ¶6, 33 P.3d 154, ¶6 (Wyo. 
2001)). 

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶11]   TJS contends that the search 
warrant was erroneously issued.  He 
asserts that the magistrate lacked probable cause to issue the warrant.  His attack on the validity of the 
warrant focuses upon the sufficiency of the affidavit submitted in support of 
the request.  TJS contends that the 
issuance of the warrant and subsequent search of his residence violates Article 
1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. 2

 
 
[¶12]   In order to properly issue a search 
warrant, a magistrate must have a substantial basis for concluding that probable 
cause exists.  Cordova, 
¶12.  The test for determining 
the existence of probable cause is whether the factual situation described in 
the affidavit is sufficient to cause a reasonably cautious or prudent person to 
believe that a crime was being committed or that one had been committed.  Id.  Additionally, there must be an 
adequate showing that the fruits of the crime or the evidence thereof are in the 
area or structure sought to be searched.  
Id.  The affidavit must include sufficient 
information to enable the issuing officer to make an independent judgment that 
probable cause exists for the warrant.  
Cordova, ¶13.  It must 
include more than bare conclusions of the affiant.  Id.  

 
 
[¶13]   If an affidavit contains hearsay 
from informants, sufficient facts must be presented in the affidavit to allow 
the judicial officer to "make an independent judgment as to the third party's 
credibility, veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge in reaching the 
ultimate determination of the existence of probable cause."  Cordova,  ¶15.

 
 
[¶14]   The affidavit submitted by Officer 
Nelson in support of his search warrant request reads in full as 
follows:

 
 
AFFIDAVIT 
OF AL NELSON

 
 
THE 
UNDERSIGNED, Al Nelson, being of lawful age, and being first duly sworn upon his 
oath, deposes and says:

 
 
1. That I 
am a police officer employed by the Town of Thermopolis, Hot Springs County, 
Wyoming.

2. That I 
have reason to believe that at 1225 Canyon Hills Road, Lot #22, described as a 
1981 Medallion 16' x 72' mobile home, VIN#6513N, Title #15-0106120, Decal #145 
in Thermopolis, Wyoming and more particularly described as Trailer Lot #22 in a 
Tract of land located in Lot 2 of Section 2, Township 42 North, Range 95 West, 
6th P.M., Hot Springs County, Wyoming, more particularly described as 
follows:  [legal description 
omitted], Thermopolis, Hot Springs County, Wyoming, owned by [names omitted] and 
currently occupied by Jayme Don [S], [TJS] and Jeanette [S] there is being 
concealed certain property, to wit:  
controlled substances, illegal drugs, or evidence indicating the illegal 
distribution and/or use of controlled substances and/or illegal drugs, plus 
documentation, whether it be written, audio, video or visual pertaining to the 
distribution and/or use of controlled substances and/or illegal drugs, to 
include, but not limited to drug paraphernalia, packaged materials, containers, 
photographs, lock boxes and/or other items used to secure, store or use 
controlled substances and/or illegal drugs, and other evidence of illegal drug 
use and/or distribution, and/or evidence of ownership or control, which 

[  ]  
is stolen or embezzled in violation of law;

[X] is designed or intended for use, or which is or 
has been used as the means of committing a criminal 
offense;

[X] is possessed, controlled, designed, or intended 
for use, or which is or has been used in violation of any 
law;

[X] tends to show a crime has been 
committed;

[X] tends to show that a particular person has 
committed a crime.

5. [sic] 
The facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a search 
warrant are as follows: 

 
 
On December 
3, 2003 Chief of Police Jim Weisbeck informed Thermopolis Police Officer Jason 
Converse and myself, Thermopolis Police Officer Al Nelson, that he had a 
Confidential Informant (hereinafter CI) a minor 14 years old (DOB 01-09-1989) 
coming in who had information about some juveniles possibly smoking marijuana 
during their high school lunch break.  
At approximately 5:15 p.m. the CI, [O]fficer Converse and I met in the 
interview room.  A parent of the CI 
was in dispatch watching and listening to the interview, which was being video 
and audio taped.

Officer 
Converse asked the CI to explain to us what he knew and any involvement he had 
with other high school kids and the smoking of marijuana.  The CI stated substantially as 
follows:

That it was 
the Tuesday one week before the Tuesday of Thanksgiving, that he had smoked 
marijuana with the other juveniles.  
A minor male, [TJS] (08-25-87) had asked him to go along with him and a 
couple other kids to smoke some pot at [TJS]'s house.  That a red-headed girl named [B] LNU 
drove him, [TJS], another male named [R] LNU, and a minor female, A.O. 
(02-07-88) to [TJS]'s house.  When 
asked if he knew the last names of any of the other kids, the CI stated 
"no".  I asked the CI if [R]'s last 
name could possibly be [A], and the CI stated that he,  [R], lived off of a street by Chevy Chase.  
Upon further questioning the CI stated they smoked the marijuana in 
[TJS]'s room.  The CI stated that 
the marijuana was located in a grey case under the tv in [TJS] 's bedroom.  The CI stated there were "2 bags" of 
marijuana in the case.  When asked 
if he noticed any other drugs in the case, the CI stated "no".  The CI indicated that when he left the 
house the grey case was still in the bedroom in the same location.  When asked, the CI stated that they had 
"used a long bong pipe that [TJS] had" to smoke the marijuana.  When asked about other pipes or bongs, 
the CI stated there were two long bong pipes stored in a long red tube to hide 
them by the TV in [TJS]'s room.  
That there was also another pipe somewhere by the TV.  The CI stated that all of the kids had 
smoked the marijuana.  When asked 
how many times he smoked marijuana at [TJS]'s house, the CI stated Tuesday thru 
Friday, and the following Monday and Tuesday before Thanksgiving, and then again 
on Tuesday the 2nd of December.  
When asked who had gone with him on the 2nd of December to [TJS]'s house 
to smoke marijuana the CI stated it was "[TJS], [R], himself and [J]".  When asked if [TJS]' s parents were ever 
there the CI stated "I think maybe his dad was there once" but the CI was not 
sure.  When asked what [TJS]'s dad's 
name was, the CI stated "I think it's Jamie".  When asked if because of the amount of 
marijuana they had been smoking whether it depleted the amount of marijuana 
[TJS] had and if so did [TJS] ever get new stuff.  The CI stated "I think the Thursday 
before Thanksgiving he ([TJS]) might have gotten some".  When asked how much, the CI stated 
"about this much" (using two fingers to show how much)". [sic] When asked to 
describe where [TJS]'s house was, the CI stated "the other trailer court over by 
me, the last trailer in on the left, a blue one.". [sic] When asked which 
entrance to the trailer they had used, the CI stated "the one next to the 
cemetery where there were no trailers across from [TJS]'s house.". 
[sic]

Through 
subsequent investigation I was able to learn that the address of the residence 
described by the CI was 1225 Canyon 
Hills Road #22.  
A vehicle outside the residence came back registered to Jamye 
[S].

On December 
4, 2003 at 11:20 a.m., Officer Martinez and I conducted surveillance of the 
residence located at 1225 Canyon 
Hills Road, #22, a blue colored trailer house, 
located at the southeast corner of the trailer park, the trailer closest to the 
cemetery.  At 11:39 a.m. I observed 
a purple Pontiac (WY 15-3753), registered to [SB],[address omitted], Thermopolis, Wyoming, pull up to the residence and four 
youths got out.  I recognized the 
driver of the vehicle as [SB]. I also recognized passengers [MB], [TJS,] and 
[RA].  At approximately 11:41 a.m. 
all four individuals started into the residence.  As the four youths were entering the 
trailer, I observed Jayme [S] leave the trailer and get into a brown Chevy 
Blazer, (WY 15-1699) registered to Jeanette [S], with an address of 1225 Canyon 
Hills Road, lot #22, Thermopolis, Wyoming, and leave the residence.  At approximately 11:52 a.m. I observed 
the same brown Chevy Blazer come back and park in front of the trailer and Jayme 
[S] got out and headed into the trailer.  
At approximately 11:54 a.m., I observed the same 4 youths come out of the 
trailer, meet and pass Jayme [S] in the yard as Jayme [S] was going back into 
the trailer, and the four youths got in the purple Pontiac and left.  At 12:02 p.m., Jayme [S] came out of the 
trailer along with an unidentified red headed woman and left in the [b]rown 
Chevy Blazer.

I later 
reviewed a report of Thermopolis Police Sergeant Mike Chimenti.  In the report [O]fficer Chimenti stated 
that at approximately noon on December 4, 2003 he observed a maroon and white 
convertible, license plate 15-3753 pull into the parking lot of the high 
school.  Officer Chimenti observed 4 
males exit the vehicle, [MB], [SB], [RA] and [TJS], and walk across the parking 
lot toward the high school building.  
I know Sergeant Chimenti to be the school resource officer for the 
Thermopolis Police Department who is assigned to the Hot SpringsCountyHigh 
School here in Hot 
Springs County, Wyoming.    

                                         /s/_______________                      

                              
Al Nelson

                                                                              
Thermopolis Police [O]fficer

 
 
 
 
                  
STATE OF WYOMING         
           
)

                                          
)ss.

                  
COUNTY OF 
HOT SPRINGS          
)

 
 
The above 
and foregoing Affidavit for Search Warrant was subscribed and sworn to before me 
personally by Al Nelson, at Thermopolis, Hot Springs County, Wyoming on December  4 , 2003.

 
 
                                                                                        
/s/_________________                     
                                                                                 District 
Court Commissioner  
 
 
[¶15]   TJS contends that the affidavit 
contains insufficient information from which the issuing officer could make an 
independent decision concerning the credibility of CI.  We disagree.

 
 
[¶16]   The statements of CI related by 
Officer Nelson in the affidavit are hearsay.  However, we have previously recognized 
that an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay where 
there is "a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay."  McCutcheon v. State, 604 P.2d 537, 543 (Wyo. 1979) (quoting Jones v. 
United States, 362 U.S. 257, [269], 80 S. Ct. 725, [735], 
4 L. Ed. 2d 697, [707] (1960)).

 
 
[¶17]   We have previously identified 
several factors that are helpful in assessing the credibility of an informant's 
hearsay statements contained in an affidavit.  An informant's first hand knowledge of 
the events or conduct which he describes enhances his credibility.  Urbigkit, 
¶15.

 
 
. . . 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.

 
 

Bonsness v. 
State, 672 P.2d 1291, 1293 (Wyo. 1983).  Statements against penal interest also 
enhance the credibility of the informant.  
Urbigkit,  ¶15.  They "carry their own indicia of 
credibilitysufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause to 
search."  Bonsness, 672 P.2d  
at 1293 (quoting United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 
91 S. Ct. 2075, 2082, 29 L. Ed. 2d 723, 734 (1971)).  

 
 
[¶18]   Temporal proximity should also be 
considered.  Information contained 
in the affidavit concerning the timeframe of the informant's involvement assists 
the judicial officer in determining whether the items to be seized are likely to 
be present at the location described in the warrant.  Guerra v. State, 897 P.2d 447, 
454 (Wyo. 
1995).  "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, ¶21.

 
 
[¶19]   We have also recognized that an 
affiant's corroboration of facts supplied by the informant increases the 
credibility of an informant.  "If an 
informant is right about some things, he is more likely right about other 
things."  Bonsness, 672 P.2d  
at 1293 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, [244], 
103 S. Ct. 2317, [2335], 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, [552] (1983)).  It is not necessary that the affidavit 
reflect verification of all facts presented by the informant.  Urbigkit,  ¶15.

 
 
[¶20]   When we analyze the 
above-referenced factors in the context of this case, we are satisfied that the 
affidavit is adequate to support the issuance of the search warrant.  The affidavit reflects that Officer 
Nelson sought a search warrant based upon hearsay information which he obtained 
from CI.  According to the 
affidavit, CI admitted using marijuana on several occasions at TJS's 
residence.  The admissions of CI of 
marijuana use are statements against penal interest.  The affidavit reflects CI's firsthand 
knowledge of the criminal activity.  He described the criminal activity with 
particularity.  He identified the 
participants.  He provided Officer 
Nelson with a description and location of the residence and described with 
specificity the drug paraphernalia utilized and its location in the 
residence.  He described the amount 
of marijuana still in the house.  
All of CI's observations were made in close temporal proximity to the 
date of the interview with Officer Nelson and execution of the search 
warrant.

 
 
[¶21]   The affidavit reflects that Officer 
Nelson did not rely solely on the information provided by CI.  He corroborated much of the 
information.  He located the 
residence.  He confirmed that TJS 
lived there.  He conducted 
surveillance the day after his interview with CI.  He observed TJS and several other 
juveniles arrive and depart TJS's residence near noon on a school day in much 
the same fashion as described by CI.  
He obtained the search warrant later that same day.  He conducted the search authorized by 
the warrant the next day.  There is 
sufficient information in the affidavit to support the credibility of CI and 
establish probable cause.

 
 
[¶22]   We find no error in the decision of 
the magistrate to issue the warrant and affirm the decision of the district 
court.

 
 
 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Relying 
on Wyoming 
precedent, both parties stated the applicable standard of review in this case as 
de novo with deference afforded to the issuing magistrate's determination 
of probable cause for issuance of a search warrant.  See Cordova v. State, 2001 WY 96, 
¶¶10-11, 33 P.3d 142, ¶¶10-11 (Wyo. 2001); Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, 
¶9, 67 P.3d 1207, ¶9 (Wyo. 2003) (stating that the applicable standard of review 
is de novo with great deference paid to the issuing magistrate's 
determination of probable cause).  
See also Hixson v. State, 2001 WY 99, ¶7, 33 P.3d 154, ¶7 (Wyo. 
2001) (standard of review is de novo with deference given to the issuing 
magistrate); Page v. State, 2003 WY 23, ¶9, 63 P.3d 904, ¶9 (Wyo. 2003) 
(review is de novo with deference given to the probable cause 
determination of the judge issuing the warrant).  Although these cases indicate the 
standard is de novo review with deference given to the issuing 
magistrate, we recognize an inherent conflict in such a standard of review.  Simply stated, there cannot be a de 
novo review if the reviewing court affords deference to the issuing 
magistrate.  The applicable standard 
for reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit to support the issuance of a 
search warrant under Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution is de 
novo. 

 
 

2Article 
1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution states:

 
 
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.