Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02132/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles John Leppert
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John A.

Jarvey, Chief Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District

of Iowa. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2132

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Charles John Leppert, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2004

Filed: May 20, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and RILEY,

Circuit Judges.

___________

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

After the district court1

 denied his motion to suppress, Charles Leppert entered

a conditional plea of guilty to being an unlawful user of methamphetamine in

possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). He appeals,

Appellate Case: 04-2132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905169
-2-

contending that the district court should have granted his suppression motion because

the warrant underlying the search was obtained without probable cause. We affirm.

I.

The police in Dubuque, Iowa, applied for and obtained a warrant to search a

residence at 2618 Central Avenue for methamphetamine, chemicals and equipment

used to make methamphetamine, and firearms. Sergeant Gregory Egan of the

Dubuque Drug Task Force signed an affidavit in support of the application, in which

he attested as follows:

At about 11:00 p.m., Sergeant Egan met with an informant, Robert Gretillat,

at the county jail following Mr. Gretillat's arrest for a probation violation.

Mr. Gretillat told Sergeant Egan that he was "currently residing" at the Central

Avenue address with Melissa Altman and an individual whom he knew only as

"Chuck." Mr. Gretillat described Chuck, and at the end of the interview he identified

a photograph of Mr. Leppert as Chuck, an individual with whom he had been living

for the past month. According to Mr. Gretillat, Jodi Riesdorf also lived at the

residence until her recent arrest, and the lease for the property was in the names of her

parents.

Mr. Gretillat also told Sergeant Egan that Chuck had cooked methamphetamine

in the basement of the Central Avenue residence about 2:00 p.m. that afternoon.

Because the methamphetamine had not turned out properly, Mr. Gretillat expected

Chuck to try to cook again that night. Mr. Gretillat named specific chemicals and

equipment for cooking methamphetamine that he had observed in the basement of the

residence that day. He added that Chuck manufactured methamphetamine by using

red phosphorous obtained from the striker plates of matchbooks and that he

(Mr. Gretillat) helped to remove the phosphorous by first soaking the striker plates

in paint thinner.

Appellate Case: 04-2132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905169
-3-

In addition, Mr. Gretillat said that a .380 pistol was in the residence: He had

seen the gun in Chuck's waistband that afternoon while Chuck was cooking

methamphetamine; the gun was black, with a clip, and was from Italy. Mr. Gretillat

also said that he had seen a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun at the residence. He had first

seen the shotgun about six weeks earlier, and he last saw it shortly after Chuck and

Ms. Altman obtained it from Ms. Riesdorf for one-half gram of methamphetamine.

The application for a warrant also included information from a confidential

informant (CI), whom an investigator had spoken to nine days before Sergeant Egan

talked to Mr. Gretillat. The CI said that he had once seen John Fuller with a sawedoff shotgun and Jody [sic] Riesdorf with a smaller sawed-off shotgun. According to

the CI, Mr. Fuller had "sold" the larger shotgun to two individuals named Chuck and

Melissa for one-half gram of methamphetamine, and Chuck and Melissa were

"resid[ing] with" Ms. Riesdorf. An attachment to the warrant application described

the CI as having a reputation for truthfulness and "no motivation to falsify the

information." The CI had "been an active informant" for the drug force for ten years,

and had "made several undercover narcotics purchases that ... resulted in successful

prosecution of numerous cases in the Dubuque area."

II.

The facts are not in dispute, and we review de novo the district court's legal

conclusions, United States v. Briones, 390 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2004). Under the

fourth amendment, warrants may issue only upon "probable cause," U.S. Const.

amend. IV, which is present when 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 (1983); see United States v. Riedesel, 987 F.2d 1383, 1390 (8th Cir. 1993).

Before issuing a warrant, a magistrate must determine based on the totality of the

circumstances that probable cause exists, Gates, 462 U.S. at 230, and if the magistrate

had a "substantial basis" for that determination both the district court and this court

must uphold it, id. at 236-37.

Appellate Case: 04-2132 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905169
-4-

Mr. Leppert contends that the state magistrate's probable cause finding cannot

be upheld because it was based on Mr. Gretillat's statements, which were not shown

to be reliable. In addition, according to Mr. Leppert, the magistrate was presented

with evidence that showed as a matter of law that Mr. Gretillat was an unreliable

informant.

Contrary to Mr. Leppert's first assertion, we believe that ample evidence

supported the reliability of Mr. Gretillat's statements. An informant's tip may be

sufficiently reliable to support a probable-cause determination if the informant has

previously provided reliable information or if the tip is "corroborated by independent

evidence." See United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993). Here the

CI gave reliable information in the past that resulted in numerous successful

prosecutions, and some of Mr. Gretillat's statements were corroborated by statements

of the reliable CI. Mr. Leppert argues that the police, rather than another informant,

must corroborate the statements of an untested informant. But we have said that

information provided by one informant may be "corroborated with specific, consistent

details provided by [a] second informant," and that, in fact, the tips of two informants

may be "reciprocally corroborative, rendering their information enough to support a

finding of probable cause." United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th

Cir.1998) (citing United States v. Jackson, 67 F.3d 1359, 1365 (8th Cir.1995), cert.

denied, 517 U.S. 1192 (1996)).

Here the reliable CI said that individuals named Chuck and Melissa lived at

Ms. Riesdorf's residence. This statement corroborates Mr. Gretillat's statement nine

days later that Chuck and Melissa Altman lived where Ms. Riesdorf had resided until

her recent arrest, and that the residence was leased in her parents' names. We note,

moreover, that both the CI and Mr. Gretillat stated that Chuck and Melissa had

obtained a sawed-off shotgun in exchange for one-half gram of methamphetamine.

Although Mr. Gretillat said that the gun came from Ms. Riesdorf and the CI said that

it came from Mr. Fuller, the CI did state that he had once seen Ms. Riesdorf with a

Appellate Case: 04-2132 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905169
-5-

sawed-off shotgun. Cf. Gates, 462 U.S. at 246 n.14. An "informant who is correct

about some things more likely will be correct about critical unverified facts," and thus

we believe that the cross-corroboration of some details of the statements of

Mr. Gretillat and the CI supports the reliability of Mr. Gretillat's statements as a

whole. Cf. United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 1986).

In addition, we note that Mr. Gretillat provided a detailed description of the

methamphetamine operation based on what he said were his firsthand observations

of recent activities. As the Supreme Court has noted, the "explicit and detailed

description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was

observed firsthand, entitles [the] tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the

case." Gates, 462 U.S. at 234; see also United States v. Jackson, 898 F.2d 79, 81 (8th

Cir. 1990). Also, we have held that an informant's statement against his or her own

penal interests (even if others are also implicated) is presumptively credible, and here

Mr. Gretillat admitted to having assisted in making methamphetamine. See United

States v. Tyler, 238 F.3d 1036, 1039 (8th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Harris,

403 U.S. 573, 583-84 (1971) (plurality opinion). We reject Mr. Leppert's contention

that the harm to Mr. Gretillat's own penal interests does not enhance his credibility

because he incriminated others. For this argument, Mr. Leppert relies on the plurality

opinion in Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 138-39 (1999), which indicates that the

sixth amendment's confrontation clause may be violated if hearsay statements that

inculpate an accused are admitted at trial, even if the statements are also selfincriminating. But, unlike criminal convictions, probable-cause determinations

generally may be based on hearsay. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 165

(1978). We believe, moreover, that Tyler holds simply that statements against the

informant's own penal interests (not against the interests of others) are presumptively

credible, and we think that Mr. Gretillat's statement that he helped to make the

methamphetamine "carr[ies] considerable weight" in supporting a finding of

probable cause to search the location where he admitted to committing that crime.

Appellate Case: 04-2132 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905169
-6-

See United States v. LaMorie, 100 F.3d 547, 553 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Harris,

403 U.S. at 584 (plurality opinion).

We also reject Mr. Leppert's contention that the evidence presented to the

magistrate showed as a matter of law that Mr. Gretillat was unreliable because he had

at least one prior conviction, had violated his probation, and was in custody for

another crime when he spoke to Sergeant Egan. Although his previous (unspecified)

crime and subsequent arrest do not enhance Mr. Gretillat's credibility, many

informants have prior convictions, and Mr. Gretillat's statements need not have been

beyond any doubt to support a "fair probability" (not a certainty) that contraband

would be found at the Central Avenue address, see Reivich, 793 F.2d at 960. Finally,

Mr. Leppert contends that even the officers themselves must have doubted

Mr. Gretillat's credibility because they did not ask him for permission to search the

Central Avenue residence, although he had told Sergeant Egan that he lived there.

We believe, however, that it was reasonable for the police to obtain a search warrant,

for which the fourth amendment expresses a "strong preference," Gates, 462 U.S. at

236, rather than trying to get consent for a warrantless search from Mr. Gretillat, who

admittedly was not even a lessee of the premises.

III.

We conclude that substantial evidence supported the magistrate's finding of

probable cause for issuance of the warrant, and therefore we affirm the district court's

order denying Mr. Leppert's motion to suppress.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2132 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905169