FILED 

APRIL 12, 2018 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

Respondent, 

V. 

JESUS MARTINEZ, 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 34929-2-111 

UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

KORSMO, J. - Othello police executed a search warrant and arrested Jesus 

Martinez after finding evidence of a methamphetamine distribution operation in Mr. 

Martinez's house. A named informant provided probable cause for the search warrant. 

Mr. Martinez contends the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence obtained in 

the search, and argues that the affidavit for the search warrant did not establish the 

informant's basis of knowledge or his veracity. We hold that the search warrant was 

supported by probable cause, and affirm. 
No. 34929-2-III 

State v. Martinez 

FACTS 

Near midnight on April 26, 2016, Othello Police Officer David Maulen saw what 

appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction in a convenience store parking lot. 

Officer Maulen questioned a man involved, who stated that he had just bought 

methamphetamine from the driver of a silver pickup truck. An officer soon stopped the 

departed pickup and arrested the driver, Raul Gonzalez, who unsuccessfully attempted to 

hide a baggie of methamphetamine in the gravel after he was detained. 

While being transported to the police station, Mr. Gonzalez stated that he wanted 

to talk to officers about the incident. He later waived his Miranda rights and admitted to 

Officer Maulen that he sold methamphetamine in the parking lot for $7. Mr. Gonzalez 

stated that two additional baggies of crystal methamphetamine were hidden in the 

pickup's 4x4 gear shift box. According to Mr. Gonzalez, he obtained the 

methamphetamine earlier that night from his long-time friend Jesse (Jesus) Martinez, also 

known as "Panther." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 27. Mr. Gonzalez described "Panther's" 

house as white, with several solar-powered garden lamps and an older red car parked in 

the driveway. CP at 55. He stated that Panther lived there with his wife and a teenage 

son. Officer Maulen had investigated Panther two months earlier for methamphetamine 

delivery and knew that he drove a white Chevrolet Impala. Mr. Gonzalez affirmed that 

Panther drove a white Impala. 

2 
No. 34929-2-111 

State v. Martinez

Officer Maulen got a warrant to search Mr. Gonzalez's car and discovered 

methamphetamine in the 4x4 gear box and $7 in cash, as predicted by Mr. Gonzalez. A 

woman who had been playing pool with Mr. Gonzalez on the evening of the incident told 

investigators that she believed Mr. Gonzalez left to visit Panther that night. She also 

described the solar-powered garden lamps at Panther's house. 

On April 27, 2016, Officer Maulen prepared an affidavit for a warrant to search 

Mr. Martinez's house. The affidavit included the above details supplied by Mr. 

Gonzalez, his female friend, and Officer Maulen. Based on this affidavit, a district court 

judge signed the warrant to search Mr. Martinez's house for evidence of the crime of 

possession of a controlled substance. The search was conducted the next day, netting 

methamphetamine, cocaine, and evidence of distribution. 

The State charged Mr. Martinez on April 29, 2016 with possession with the intent 

to deliver cocaine, possession with the intent to deliver methamphetamine, and second 

degree unlawful possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained in 

the search of his house, arguing in part that the affidavit for the warrant lacked probable 

cause. In findings of fact and conclusions oflaw entered on December 12, 2016, the trial 

court found that Mr. Gonzalez was a named informant who made statements against his 

penal interest. For these reasons, the trial court concluded that Mr. Gonzalez "had a 

heightened reason to be truthful." CP at 28. The court thus concluded that probable 

3 
No. 34929-2-111 

State v. Martinez 

cause existed for the search warrant, and denied the motion to suppress. Mr. Gonzalez 

was then convicted on stipulated facts of possession with intent to deliver 

methamphetamine and second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. 

DISCUSSION 

Mr. Martinez's sole issue on appeal is that the search warrant was not supported 

by probable cause. He contends the search warrant affidavit failed to meet the test for 

informant-based probable cause under Aguilar-Spinelli. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 

108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 

S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969). We review the trial court's legal conclusion that

probable cause was established de novo. State v. Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d 30, 40, 162 

P.3d 389 (2007). In so doing, we give great deference to the magistrate's determination

of probable cause, and will not disturb the magistrate's decision to issue a warrant absent 

abuse of discretion. State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91, 108, 59 P.3d 58 (2002). 

An affidavit for probable cause to issue a search warrant must set forth facts 

sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect is probably involved in 

criminal activity and that officers will find evidence of that criminal activity at the place 

to be searched. State v. Ollivier, 161 Wn. App. 307, 316-17, 254 P.3d 883 (2011). The 

affidavit is tested in a "commonsense, non-hypertechnical manner." Chamberlin, 161 

Wn.2d at 41. When an informant's tip provides the basis for probable cause to search, 

4 
No. 34929-2-III 

State v. Martinez 

Washington courts apply the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test, which requires the 

affidavit for a search warrant to (1) set forth circumstances underlying the informant's 

conclusions, so that the magistrate can evaluate the reliability of the informant's 

information (the basis of knowledge prong); and (2) set forth circumstances underlying 

the officer's conclusion that the informant is credible and reliable (the veracity prong). 

State v. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d 823, 827, 700 P.2d 319 (1985); Ollivier, 161 Wn. App. at 

317. 

Mr. Martinez first challenges the informant's basis of knowledge. He contends the 

affidavit does not establish that Mr. Gonzalez actually saw controlled substances in Mr. 

Martinez's house or that Mr. Gonzalez had skill or training in identifying those 

substances. 

An informant's personal observations of the facts is sufficient to support the "basis 

of knowledge" prong. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d at 827. Here, Mr. Gonzalez told officers that 

he was an old friend of Mr. Martinez and had bought methamphetamine from him in the 

past. Mr. Gonzalez admitted that he had received the methamphetamine involved in the 

$7 sale earlier in the day, while visiting Mr. Martinez "at his home." CP at 55. While 

there, Mr. Gonzalez continued, Mr. Martinez pulled half an ounce of methamphetamine 

from his pocket and separated out $40-worth to give to Mr. Gonzalez. These facts are 

sufficient to establish a reasonable person's conclusion that Mr. Gonzalez had experience 

5 
No. 34929-2-111 

State v. Martinez 

identifying methamphetamine and had observed the drug in Mr. Martinez's house. See 

Vickers, 148 Wn.2d at 108-09 ("a magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences 

from the facts and circumstances set forth in the supporting affidavit"). 

Mr. Martinez also challenges the informant's veracity. He argues that the affidavit 

was deficient because it did not provide any background on Mr. Gonzalez's reputation or 

history of providing accurate information to law enforcement, and because it failed to 

include Mr. Gonzalez's criminal history, which was quite extensive. 

The veracity prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test seeks to evaluate the truthfulness of 

the informant. Chamberlin; 161 Wn.2d at 42. Where, as here, the informant does not 

have a history of providing information to officers, the informant's reliability may be 

established by circumstances that reasonably assure trustworthiness. Id. at 41-42; State v. 

Lair, 95 Wn.2d 706, 710, 630 P.2d 427 (1981). An admission against penal interest is a 

factor supporting an informant's reliability, especially when the informant publicly stands 

by his information. See Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d at 42. 

Here, Mr. Gonzalez made a statement against his penal interest when he admitted 

that he obtained methamphetamine from Mr. Martinez and then sold some of it in the 

convenience store parking lot for $7. He also accurately predicted that officers would 

find more methamphetamine in the gear shift box of his 4x4 vehicle. Mr. Gonzalez 

provided accurate descriptions of Mr. Martinez's house. and car, of the items found in the 

6 
No. 34929-2-111 

State v. Martinez 

4x4, and of the events leading up to his sale of the methamphetamine. This information 

was corroborated by the friends who accompanied him that night and by Officer 

Maulen's observations and experience. Altogether, these circumstances support a 

reasonable person's conclusion that Mr. Gonzalez was reliable. 

Mr. Martinez notes that the affidavit failed to reveal that Mr. Gonzalez had an 

extensive criminal history, which Mr. Martinez asserts is evidence that Mr. Gonzales is 

not trustworthy. But the superior court rejected this argument because none of the 

criminal history involved dishonesty. Furthermore, Mr. Gonzales's criminal history, 

along with his admissions against penal interest, were strong motives for him to be 

accurate in the information he provided to the officers, especially if he hoped for a 

favorable sentencing recommendation. See Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d at 42; State v. Bean, 

89 Wn.2d 467,471,572 P.2d 1102 (1978); Ollivier, 161 Wn. App. at 318. 

CONCLUSION 

The facts contained in Officer Maulen's affidavit in support of a search warrant 

were sufficient to support the magistrate's conclusion that the named informant had a 

basis of knowledge and was trustworthy, meeting the two-pronged test of AguilarSpinelli. Consequently, the trial court properly concluded that the affidavit supported 

probable cause to issue the search warrant. 

7 
No. 34929-2-III 

State v. Martinez 

Affirmed. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040. 

WE CONCUR: 

8