Title: MARY J. MUELLER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MARY J. MUELLER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2009 WY 27202 P.3d 404Case Number: No. S-08-0057Decided: 02/26/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
MARY 
J. MUELLER,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Washakie County

The 
Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Diane 
M. Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; 
David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, 
Assistant Attorney General

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant, Mary 
J. Mueller, was convicted by a jury of felony possession of methamphetamine, 
which police found while executing a search warrant at her residence.  On appeal, Mueller challenges the 
district court's denial of her pre-trial motion to suppress the methamphetamine 
evidence, contending the affidavit supporting the issuance of the search warrant 
failed to establish probable cause.  
We affirm.

 
 

ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Mueller phrases 
the issue as follows:

 
 
Did 
the trial court err as a matter of law by refusing to suppress the evidence 
obtained pursuant to a search warrant that was deficient on its face due to 
omissions in the supporting affidavit?

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      On April 18, 
2007, Jamie McKim reported that her white four-door Mercury Sable, bearing 
Wyoming license plate number 9-231B, had been stolen from her place of 
employment in Worland, Wyoming.  
Later that evening, law enforcement officers spotted the stolen car.  After a brief chase, police found the 
vehicle abandoned on North 15th Street and discovered two individuals 
hiding nearby.  

 
 
[¶4]      One of the 
individuals arrested, Alfred Martinez, reported that Joey Costalez had given him 
the car earlier that day.  Martinez 
stated that Costalez was his cousin and that Costalez lived in the area where 
they had ditched the car.  
Thereafter, police returned the vehicle to McKim, who reported several 
items missing, including a car seat, an iPod, and some key chains.  

 
 
[¶5]      The next day, 
Officer Horath of the Worland Police Department spoke with two individuals who 
lived in the vicinity of 809 N. 15th Street.  Both individuals reported seeing two 
Hispanic men unloading plastic boxes containing clothing from a white four-door 
sedan the previous night and inserting the boxes through a window into the 
north-side basement apartment at 809 N. 15th Street.  They described one of the men as "heavy 
set" and identified the other man as Joey Costalez.  

 
 
[¶6]      On April 19, 
2007, Officer Horath sought and obtained a search warrant for the north-side 
basement apartment at 809 N. 15th Street, which was leased to 
Mueller.  While executing the search 
warrant, law enforcement officers discovered methamphetamine as well as other 
drug-related items inside the apartment.  
Mueller was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a controlled 
substance, a felony, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii).  She filed a motion to suppress the 
evidence obtained from the search of her apartment, asserting that the affidavit 
underlying the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause.  The district court denied that 
motion.  

 
 
[¶7]      Following a trial 
on November 13, 2007, a jury found Mueller guilty on the charged offense.  The district court sentenced Mueller to 
serve a term of incarceration of four to five years, but suspended execution of 
that prison sentence in favor of a split sentence consisting of one year in 
county jail followed by four years of supervised probation.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 

Standard 
of Review

 
 
[¶8]      On this issue, we 
have said:

 
 
In 
reviewing an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant, this 
Court is mindful of the fact that there is a strong preference under the law for 
law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant instead of engaging in a 
warrantless search.  Thus, an 
affidavit comes to this Court with a presumption of validity.  In order to promote the warrant process, 
and remembering that affidavits are not normally executed by legal technicians, 
this Court resolves doubtful or marginal cases in this area in favor of 
sustaining the warrant.  Ultimately, 
our duty on review simply is to ensure that the warrant-issuing judicial officer 
had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause 
existed.

 
 

Schirber 
v. State, 
2006 WY 121, ¶ 5, 142 P.3d 1169, 1172 (Wyo. 2006) (internal citations 
omitted).

 
 

Analysis

 
 
[¶9]      Mueller contends, 
as she did below, that the search warrant is constitutionally infirm under Art. 
1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution1 because the affidavit submitted by 
Officer Horath fails to contain sufficient information to support the judicial 
officer's finding of probable cause.  
The existence of probable cause justifying the issuance of a search 
warrant involves a twofold finding.  
First, the factual situation described in the affidavit must be 
sufficient to cause a reasonably cautious person to believe that a crime was 
being committed or that one had been committed.  Second, there must be an adequate 
showing that the fruits of the crime or the evidence thereof are in the 
structure or area sought to be searched.  
Bouch v. State, 2006 WY 122, ¶ 
15, 143 P.3d 643, 648 (Wyo. 2006).  
We previously summarized the standard for a warrant-issuing judicial 
officer's probable cause determination:

 
 
The 
judicial officer who is presented with an application for a search warrant 
supported by an affidavit applies a "totality of circumstances" analysis in 
making an independent judgment whether probable cause exists for the issuance of 
the warrant.  See, e.g., Page [v. State, 2003 WY 23], ¶ 9, 63 P.3d 
[904,] 909 [Wyo. 2003]; [Massachusetts 
v.] Upton, 466 U.S. [727,] 732, 
104 S.Ct. [2085,] 2087[, 80 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1984) (per curiam)]; and Bonsness [v. State], 672 P.2d [1291,] 1293 [(Wyo. 
1983)].  In making that independent 
judgment, the judicial officer is limited to the four corners of the supporting 
affidavit.  Page, ¶ 9, 63 P.3d  at 909.  The "totality of circumstances" analysis 
requires the judicial officer simply "to make a practical, common sense decision 
whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, 
including the veracity' and basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay 
information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime 
will be found in a particular place."  
[Illinois v.] Gates, 462 U.S. [213,] 238, 103 S.Ct. 
[2317,] 2332[, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983)]; see Bonsness, 672 P.2d  at 
1293.

 
 

Rohda 
v. State, 2006 WY 120, ¶ 5, 142 P.3d 1155, 1158-59 (Wyo. 2006); see also 
Holzheuser v. State, 2007 WY 160, ¶ 8, 169 P.3d 68, 74 (Wyo. 2007); Abeyta v. State, 2007 WY 142, ¶ 11, 167 P.3d 1, 7 (Wyo. 2007); Crackenberger v. 
State, 2006 WY 162, ¶ 7, 149 P.3d 465, 470 (Wyo. 2006).  We also said that the "judicial officer 
does not measure the affidavit by a reasonable doubt' standard or a 
preponderance of evidence' standard; instead, the measure is that the 
circumstances set forth in the affidavit must amount to more than a mere 
suspicion yet need not rise to the level of prima facie evidence of guilt."  Rohda, ¶ 6, 142 P.3d  at 1159 (citing Lee v. State, 2 P.3d 517, 523 (Wyo. 
2000)).

 
 
[¶10]   With these principles in mind, we 
turn to Mueller's complaint regarding the adequacy of the search warrant 
affidavit.  The affidavit reads as 
follows:

 
 
COMES 
NOW, Lawrence B. Horath, the Affiant herein, being of lawful age, under oath, 
deposes and states as follows:

 
 
1.         
That the Affiant is a duly sworn, qualified and acting Police Officer for 
the City of Worland, Washakie County, Wyoming.

 
 

2.            
On 
the 19th day of April, 2007[,] I conducted interviews of two persons 
who live in the vicinity of 809 N. 15th, City of Worland, County of 
Washakie, State of Wyoming.  Both of 
these subjects are known to me from previous contacts, and both are at least 18 
years of age.

 
 

3.            
Subject 
one, the older of the two persons, stated that at approximately 19:15 hours on 
the 18th day of April[,] 2007, two Hispanic male subjects were 
observed on the North side of the apartment building located at 809 N. 
15th [S]treet, City of Worland, County of Washakie, unloading plastic 
boxes full of clothing (subject one said clothing was visible hanging out the 
sides of the boxes) from a white 4 door sedan through a window into the North 
side basement apartment of the building.

 
 

4.            
Subject 
one stated the heavy set Hispanic male has been frequenting this apartment 
during [the] previous week.  The 
other Hispanic male subject was positively identified by subject one as "Joey 
Costalez", who is known to law enforcement as Larry Joseph 
Costalez.

 
 

5.            
Subject 
two stated that between the hours of 19:15 and 19:30 on the 18th day 
of April, 2007, two Hispanic male subjects, one identified as heavy set with 
very short hair, and "Joey Costalez" were observed unloading plastic boxes of 
clothing from a white 4 door passenger car, which he described as a Ford Taurus 
or similar Ford Motor Company model, with Wyoming 9 county plates (subject two 
did not note the balance of the number) into a window of the North basement 
apartment at 809 N. 15th [S]treet, City of Worland, County of 
Washakie[,] State of Wyoming.

 
 

6.            
A 
white 4 door sedan bearing Wyoming passenger plate 9-231B was reported and 
signed as stolen by its owner, Jamie Kay McKim on the 18th day of 
April, 2007.  The stolen car was 
reported as a 1999 Mercury Sable, 4 door sedan white in 
color.

 
 

7.            
During 
the late evening hours of 04-18-07, the vehicle was located in Worland.  After a brief pursuit involving W.P.D. 
Sgt. Tom Brase, the occupants ditched the car North of Yellowstone Avenue on 
North 15th street.  Two 
subjects were located hiding in different locations within a 100 yard radius of 
the apartment building at 809 N. 15th [S]treet, City of Worland.  Alfred Martinez[,] who was subsequently 
arrested, admitted to Sgt. Brase that Joey Costalez had given the car to him and 
Felipe Andreano earlier in the day, and that Joey Costalez was in fact his, 
Alfred Martinez'[s] cousin.  He also 
stated Joey lived not far from where they had ditched the 
car.

 
 

8.            
On 
the 19th of April 19 [sic], 2007, the owner of the stolen car, Jaime 
[sic] McKim came to the L.E.C. and filled out an affidavit including a list of 
items which were missing from her vehicle when it was returned to her.  A copy of that affidavit is attached to 
this document.  

 
 
McKim's 
affidavit, which was attached to and incorporated by reference into Officer 
Horath's affidavit, states in pertinent part:2

 
 
That 
while in Washakie County, City of Worland, Wyoming, on or about the 18 day of 
April, 2007:

 
 
At 
about 3:57 pm I came back to carquest from my lunch break.  I parked my car in the parking lot & 
left my keys in the car.  I had been 
at work for about 5 to 10 min. when Joe Costalez walked in & asked me where 
the bonde was.  I showed him where 
it was he said, "thank you, I was just checking some prices," & as he was 
walking out I noticed Alfie at the doorway & then the two of them walked 
around the front of Carquest.  I got 
off work about 5:40 pm & when I got in my car my keys were gone.  So I called T.J. Garay for a ride.  I got home & called the police to 
report that my keys were stolen.  
Around 7:00 pm T.J. & I went to Kraft's to put gas in his pickup 
& I could see that my car was still there.  We went to eat at T.J.'s mom's house 
& by the time we got back at about 8:00 pm my car was gone.  T.J. called the police & I went to 
tell them what happened about my car.  
When we left we drove around all the places it might be & could not 
find it.  So I went home & later 
on T.J. called & told me what happened.  Later on the police contacted me about 
my car & said I could go get it so T.J. brought it home.  When I got my car back these were the 
items missing, my car seat & ipod & my key chain which had on it T.J.'s 
chevy truck key, a red key chain flashlight, a key chain that says Jamie on it. 

 
 
[¶11]   Mueller first complains that the 
factual information contained in the affidavit fails to provide a nexus between 
the evidence sought (McKim's stolen property) and the place to be searched (her 
apartment).  We disagree.  The affidavit contains information 
regarding the theft of McKim's white, four-door 1999 Mercury Sable sedan, 
bearing Wyoming license plate number 9-231B, and her personal items that were in 
the vehicle.  The affidavit 
discloses that the car was stolen sometime after 7:00 p.m. on April 18, 
2007.  A few hours earlier, Joey 
Costalez and "Alfie" were observed in the area from which the car was 
stolen.  At approximately 7:15 to 
7:30 p.m., a vehicle matching the description of McKim's stolen car was spotted 
parked outside an apartment building located at 809 N. 15th 
Street.  Joey Costalez and a 
heavy-set Hispanic male were observed removing plastic boxes from the vehicle 
and placing those boxes in the north-side basement apartment.3  Costalez's possession of the stolen 
vehicle was confirmed by Alfred Martinez, who reported to police that Costalez 
had given him the stolen vehicle that day.  

 
 
[¶12]   Based on the totality of the 
information contained in the affidavit, the warrant-issuing judicial officer had 
a substantial basis for his practical and common sense determination that there 
was a fair probability that Costalez had engaged in criminal activity  the 
theft of McKim's car and the items contained therein.  The judicial officer also had a 
substantial basis from which to reasonably conclude that evidence of Costalez's 
criminal activity (McKim's personal property) could be found in the basement 
north-side apartment located at 809 N. 15th 
Street.  Simply put, we find that 
the affidavit provides a sufficient factual nexus between the criminal activity, 
the evidence to be seized, and the place to be searched.

 
 
[¶13]   Mueller also contends the affidavit 
is insufficient because it fails to establish the reliability of the unnamed 
informants, "Subject one" and "Subject two," who provided the information 
detailed in paragraphs three through five.  
When an affidavit contains statements from an informant, a secondary 
source, sufficient facts must be presented such that the warrant-issuing 
judicial officer can make an independent judgment as to the informant's 
credibility, veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge in determining the 
existence of probable cause.  Rohda, ¶ 8, 142 P.3d  at 1159-60. In 
deciding whether information from an informant is sufficient to establish 
probable cause, courts have generally drawn a distinction between information 
from common citizens and information from informants who regularly supply 
information to the police.  Borgwardt v. State, 946 P.2d 805, 807 
(Wyo. 1997).  Citizen informants, in 
contrast to police informants, are ordinarily deemed to be presumptively 
reliable sources of information.  Id.; see also Crackenberger, ¶ 10, 149 P.3d  
at 470.  

 
 
[¶14]   In this case, there is no 
indication in the affidavit that the unnamed informants were anything other than 
common citizens who, when approached by Officer Horath, were willing to answer 
questions regarding what they had observed in the area the previous 
evening.  As mentioned above, 
citizen informants are generally entitled to a presumption of reliability.  This is particularly true here because 
the informants' identities were known to Officer Horath and, as such, they were 
subject to possible criminal prosecution if they provided false 
information.  Crackenberger, ¶ 10, 149 P.3d  at 
470-71.  

 
 
[¶15]   Beyond this presumption of 
reliability, we also note the information in the affidavit reflects first-hand 
observations of the informants and is specific and detailed.  Both informants provided similar 
descriptions of the individuals observed taking items from the car and placing 
them in the apartment.  They each 
independently identified Joey Costalez as one of the individuals removing items 
from the car.  The identification of 
Costalez is significant, as Costalez was seen in the area where McKim's vehicle 
had been stolen and Alfred Martinez reported that Costalez had given him the 
stolen vehicle.  Additionally, the 
informants' description of the vehicle at the residence matched the description 
of McKim's stolen car.  One of the 
informants specifically described the vehicle as "a white 4 door passenger car . 
. . a Ford Taurus or similar Ford Motor Company model, with Wyoming 9 county 
plates."  The specificity of this 
information, coupled with the fact that all of the descriptive information given 
by the informants relating to the vehicle and the identification of Costalez was 
corroborated by other individuals, strongly indicates the informants were 
reliable.

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶16]   We hold that the affidavit of 
Officer Horath, when read in its entirety, provided a substantial basis for the 
warrant-issuing judicial officer's finding of probable cause.  Accordingly, we find no error in the 
district court's denial of Mueller's motion to suppress.  Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Art. 1, § 4 provides that "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."

 
 

2We have chosen not to expressly identify punctuation and other immaterial 
errors in the affidavit.

 
 

3Although 
the affidavit mentioned that clothing was observed in the plastic boxes, this 
does not preclude the presence of the smaller items reported missing by 
McKim.