Opinion ID: 658168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Williams' Motion To Suppress Evidence Seized From His Home

Text: 11 Williams challenges the admission into evidence of several items seized by the officers from the Chalmette apartment. Williams claims that (1) there was insufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant, and the information underlying the issuance of the warrant was too stale to furnish probable cause; and (2) there was an unreasonable delay in execution of the warrant.
12 Regarding Williams' first challenge, he argues that the affidavit and application for the issuance of a search warrant failed to provide enough information to determine the reliability of the informant. Williams also argues that the warrant was based on uncorroborated information. He further argues that the informant had not recently been in contact with him, and thus, the informant's information relating to his drug dealing was stale. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. 13 In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (Gates), the Supreme Court set forth a totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining probable cause to support a search warrant. Applications and affidavits for issuance of a warrant should be examined under a common sense approach and not in a hypertechnical fashion. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). A reviewing court must accord substantial deference to the finding of an issuing judicial officer that probable cause exists. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331. The core question in assessing probable cause based upon information supplied by an informant is whether the information is reliable. Information may be sufficiently reliable to support a probable cause finding if the person providing the information has a track record of supplying reliable information, or if it is corroborated by independent evidence. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313, 79 S.Ct. 329, 333, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959) (Draper ). If information from an informant is shown to be reliable because of independent corroboration, then it is a permissible inference that the informant is reliable and that therefore other information that the informant provides, though uncorroborated, is also reliable. Gates, 462 U.S. at 233-34, 103 S.Ct. at 2329-30; Draper, 358 U.S. at 313, 79 S.Ct. at 333. 14 In the present case, the informant stated to Officer Tarpley that he had been in the apartment with Williams and seen quantities of cocaine. This information was based on the informant's first-hand observations, not merely from rumor or innuendo. Officer Tarpley stated valid reasons to support his belief that this information was accurate, including the proven reliability of the informant when working with law enforcement officers on past occasions. The affidavit specifically stated that the informant had provided reliable information in the past which led to the seizure of quantities of cocaine, marijuana and currency. Further, Officer Tarpley corroborated information from the informant that the apartment was listed in the name of Ritta Miller. Such independent corroboration bolsters the reliability and credibility of the informant's information, and thus, the finding of probable cause. 15 We also reject Williams' claim that the information provided by the informant to support the issuance of the warrant was stale. The informant stated to Officer Tarpley that he had seen cocaine in its original packaging from Colombia in the Chalmette apartment on the same day the application was made. Such information from personal observation of criminal activity at the premises to be searched on the very day that the application for a warrant was made was sufficiently fresh to establish probable cause when the warrant was issued. 16
17 Williams next argues that, following the report from the confidential informant on October 22, 1992, cocaine was no longer present in the residence, probable cause for the warrant had evaporated, and therefore, the warrant was no longer valid when it was executed on October 30, 1992. Williams contends that the eight-day delay in execution of the search warrant was unreasonable. 18 We agree with Williams that, after learning from the informant that the cocaine was no longer in the apartment but that a new shipment would be arriving within a week, the better practice would have been for the officers to return to the court to update the information supporting the October 22, 1992 warrant and obtain a new warrant. However, the failure to return to court and seek a new warrant did not invalidate the search warrant in the present case because probable cause continued to exist at the time the warrant was executed. 19 Whether the period of delay between issuance and execution of a warrant is reasonable necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The present case comes within the ambit of United States v. Shegog, 787 F.2d 420 (8th Cir.1986) (Shegog ). In Shegog, Gregory Shegog argued that an eight-day delay between the issuance and execution of a search warrant was unreasonable and invalidated the search. A reliable, confidential informant informed detectives that Shegog was selling phencyclidine (PCP) from a particular residence. The informant told the detectives that he had been inside the residence in question and had seen a large quantity of PCP. Consequently, the detectives applied for and obtained a state search warrant on March 4, 1985. Later that same day, the confidential informant notified the detectives that the drugs at Shegog's residence had been shipped out but that more was expected to come in. On March 12, 1985, eight days after the search warrant had been issued, the informant told the detectives that the new shipment of drugs had arrived at Shegog's house. The detectives immediately executed the warrant and seized large quantities of drugs and packaging materials. 20 Like the present case, the record in Shegog indicated that probable cause existed on March 4, 1985, at the time the search warrant was issued, to believe that drugs and currency would be found at Shegog's residence. The Shegog court held that the search warrant was not unreasonably executed eight days later because probable cause continued to exist to believe that drugs would be found at the residence in question. Shegog, 787 F.2d at 422. Shegog concluded that probable cause continued to exist when the warrant was executed due to the continuing and ongoing nature of the suspected criminal activity and similarity of facts existing at the time the warrant was issued and the time the warrant was executed. Id. at 423. 21 In determining whether probable cause dissipated over time, a court must 'evaluate the nature of the criminal activity and the kind of property for which authorization to search is sought.'  United States v. Simpkins, 914 F.2d 1054, 1059 (8th Cir.1990) (Simpkins) (quoting United States v. Foster, 711 F.2d 871, 878 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1103, 104 S.Ct. 1602, 80 L.Ed.2d 132 (1984)). The present case parallels Shegog. The facts supporting the issuance of the warrant on October 22, 1992, to search the Chalmette apartment for quantities of cocaine substantially correspond to those facts existing on October 30, 1992, when the warrant was executed. Further, the continuing and ongoing nature of cocaine trafficking supports the continued existence of probable cause. It is reasonable for law enforcement officers to conclude that large-scale drug operations continued at the same location for a period of time. 3 Simpkins, 914 F.2d at 1059. 22 As in Shegog, we note that the issue of whether the delay in execution of the search warrant was unreasonable is a question that could have easily been avoided had the officers applied for and obtained a second search warrant on the basis of the informant's additional information regarding Williams' drug trafficking activities. Rather than speculate whether probable cause continued to exist, the better practice is to return to court and update the information and obtain a new warrant. 23