FILED 

April 21, 2016 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 33778-2-111 

Respondent, 

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

KEVIN RAY EDGAR, 

Appellant. 

LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.C.J. - Kevin Ray Edgar appeals his conviction for 

vehicular assault. He claims the trial court erred in concluding that the affidavit in 

support of a warrant sufficiently established the reliability of an unnamed witness. We 

affirm. 

FACTS 

On the evening of January 10, 2015, a witness reported seeing Kevin Ray Edgar 

driving between 80 and 90 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone before being involved in a single 

car accident. The first police officer to arrive at the scene of the collision observed that 

Mr. Edgar's car left the roadway and landed on its passenger side. Mr. Edgar and the 

passenger were transported to a hospital. 
No. 33778-2-III 

State v. Edgar 

Trooper Charles Ferrell, a drug recognition expert, contacted Mr. Edgar at the 

hospital. The trooper could smell an odor of intoxicants coming from Mr. Edgar. Mr. 

Edgar was uncooperative and belligerent with Trooper Ferrell. Trooper Ferrell compiled 

an affidavit in support of a warrant to obtain a blood sample from Mr. Edgar to test for 

evidence of intoxication. The affidavit provided in part: 

According to Trooper B. Pilkington #1202 who is at the scene of the 

collision, Mr. Edgar's vehicle left the roadway to the north where it drove 

up an embankment before becoming airborne. The vehicle rolled coming to 

rest on the north shoulder. The vehicle was on its passenger side facing 

east. 

Witness stopped at the scene and pulled both parties from the vehicle. 

Witness advised female passenger and male driver. Witness advised female 

passenger was yelling at male for driving too fast, being drunk and high, 

and almost killing her. 

Trooper Pilkington was the first Trooper to arrive on the scene and 

contacted Mr. Edgar and the passenger. Trooper Pilkington advised Mr. 

Edgar was belligerent and had an overwhelming odor of alcohol coming 

from his person. Trooper Pilkington advised Mr. Edgar's speech was 

slurred. Due to injuries, Trooper Pilkington was unable to perform any 

standardized field sobriety tests with Mr. Edgar. 

Clerk's Papers at 22. 

The trial court issued the warrant. Mr. Edgar filed a motion to suppress the 

blood test evidence, arguing the affidavit in support of the warrant failed to 

establish the reliability of the unnamed witness. The trial court denied the motion. 

2 
No. 33778-2-111 

State v. Edgar 

ANALYSIS 

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we determine whether 

substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings and, in tum, whether those findings 

support the conclusions of law. Mr. Edgar does not assign error to the trial court's 

findings, which we therefore treat as verities on appeal. State v. Ross, 141 Wn.2d 304, 

309, 4 P.3d 130 (2000). 

Probable cause to issue a warrant is established if the supporting affidavit sets 

forth "facts sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude the defendant probably is 

involved in criminal activity." State v. Huft, 106 Wn.2d 206, 209, 720 P.2d 838 (1986). 

The affidavit must be tested in a commonsense fashion rather than hypertechnically. 

State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251, 265, 76 P.3d 217 (2003). The existence of probable 

cause is a legal question that a reviewing court reviews de nova. State v. Chamberlin, 

161 Wn.2d 30, 40, 162 P.3d 389 (2007). However, we afford great deference to the 

issuing magistrate's determination of probable cause. State v. Cord, 103 Wn.2d 361, 366, 

693 P.2d 81 (1985). 

We apply the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test to assess the adequacy of a search 

warrant affidavit. State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 446, 688 P.2d 136 (1984); Spinelli v. 

United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415-16, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. 

3 
No. 33778-2-III 

State v. Edgar 

Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964). Probable cause based 

on an informant's information requires that an affidavit establish both the informant's 

reliability and basis of knowledge. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 445; State v. Smith, 110 Wn.2d 

658, 664, 756 P.2d 722 (1988). Where one or both of these factors is weak, independent 

police investigation can supply corroboration. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 445. An unnamed 

citizen informant is considered reliable if the record establishes that the information is 

credible and the informant is without motive to falsify. State v. Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 

287-88, 906 P.2d 925 (1995). 

Mr. Edgar argues that the superior court erred in determining that the affidavit 

provided sufficient facts to determine the reliability of the unnamed witness. We 

disagree. 

When dealing with unnamed citizen informants, courts are concerned with whether 

the informant is an "anonymous troublemaker" or a helpful citizen who wishes to retain 

his or her privacy. State v. Ibarra, 61 Wn. App. 695, 699-700, 812 P.2d 114 (1991). To 

guard against anonymous troublemaking, the affiant must provide enough additional 

information to support an inference that the informant is telling the truth. Id. at 700. 

4 
No. 33778-2-III 

State v. Edgar 

Nothing in this case suggests anonymous troublemaking. Here, the record 

confirms that the unnamed witness was simply a concerned citizen with no motive to 

fabricate. The witness reported the collision to dispatch, remained at the scene, removed 

Mr. Edgar and the injured passenger from the cars, and stayed to provide a statement to 

law enforcement. Trooper Ferrell's failure to state the witness's name in the affidavit 

appears to be an oversight, rather than based on the witness's desire to remain 

anonymous. In fact, the trial court concluded that Trooper Ferrell's failure to name the 

witness in the affidavit did not render the witness anonymous because the witness was 

identified by law enforcement and present during Trooper Pilkington's investigation. 

However, even ifwe depart from the trial court's analysis and treat the witness as 

anonymous, there was sufficient evidence in the affidavit to establish the witness's 

reliability. The citizen came forth voluntarily, received no benefit from providing 

information, and the police investigation corroborated the witness's information. Giving 

deference to the trial court's determination, the affidavit contains sufficient facts to 

support a reasonable inference that the witness was credible and without motive to falsify. 

5 
No. 33778-2-111 

State v. Edgar 

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: 

d?dhw. ,ft· Siddoway, J. ~ 

j 

Pennell, J. 

Lawrence-Berrey, A.C.J. 

6 

j