Opinion ID: 2190063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: This case turns entirely on the affidavits submitted to the judicial officer in support of the application for the warrants. The affidavit supplied for the first warrant is the most important. It was prepared by a state police officer and details the facts gathered in an eight month investigation of drug trafficking at a tavern (the Tavern) in Bennington County, in which defendant was the bouncer. The major facts and allegations set forth in the six and one-half page supporting affidavit are as follows. The affidavit describes fifteen separate events involving the Tavern and covers a period from November, 1983 through July 15, 1984three days before the warrant was issued. In addition, the affidavit describes investigatory findings to corroborate details supplied by informants and to identify the owner, employees and patrons of the Tavern. Of the fifteen events, nine were related to the affiant by four confidential informants. The first described himself as a patron of the Tavern. In January, 1984, he stated that he purchased cocaine from the bartender whom he identified by name and by description. He further stated that he observed other people purchasing cocaine in the Tavern and that the transactions took place in the rear of the building by the fooze ball machine. He stated that some of the drug sales were made by the bouncer whom he identified from a photographic lineup as the defendant in this case. At the end of January, this informant again reported that he observed a recent drug transaction at the Tavern, involving the bartender. The second confidential informant reported in March, 1984 that while present in the Tavern he observed the owner sell speed to another person. He also reported the names of the owner and employees of the Tavern. The third confidential informant spoke with another police officer in June. She reported that she had observed the bartender at the Tavern sell cocaine to her boyfriend. She reported that it was known that drugs of all types were available at the Tavern and stated the prices of various kinds of drugs. Further, she reported that to buy drugs in the Tavern, one normally spoke with the bartender. This informant made another report on July 5th. She described buying LSD at the Tavern and stated that the transaction took place in the rear of the bar. The fourth informant provided the most information. On July 8th, this informant reported that he had purchased drugs in the Tavern in the past, with the most recent transaction occurring about two weeks earlier. He described how drugs were sold and indicated he normally dealt with the bartender. He also advised that cocaine was also sold by a regular customer whom he described. The fourth informant reported that he and a friend tried to buy cocaine on the night of July 14th at the Tavern. No cocaine was available at that location. However, the defendant took them to his apartment and sold them a quarter ounce of cocaine. On July 15th, the fourth informant made a controlled drug purchase at the Tavern. He was strip searched before entering the Tavern and after leaving it. He took in $25 in marked bills and returned with $5 and a quantity of LSD. He said he bought it from the regular patron that he had previously reported. The affidavit provides no specific information about the credibility of the four informants. There is no indication that the informants provided information to the police in the past. The other events described in the affidavit generally were the results of surveillance conducted outside and inside the Tavern. Law enforcement officers observed a regular pattern of persons entering the Tavern and leaving a short time later. In one instance, the officer observed a person leave the Tavern, enter his car and snort a substance the officer believed to be drugs. In another, persons left the Tavern, went to their automobile and passed around a cigarette which may have been marijuana. Surveillance within the bar showed a lot of activity at the rear near the fooze ball machine. The information gained by the officer from other sources about the employees e.g., name, description, etc.confirmed that supplied by the informants. In addition, the affiant determined that the bartender had been convicted of possession of marijuana two years earlier. Based on the above information, the judicial officer issued a warrant to search the Tavern and the person of all employees present (named as the bartender, the defendant and the tavern owner) for drugs, records and paraphernalia used in drug trafficking. Upon the execution of the warrant, defendant was detained and taken to the police barracks. A search there found twenty-four packages of cocaine and $40 in cash. The second search took place eight days later. The affidavit in support of the application for the second search warrant relied on the earlier affidavit and the results of the earlier search. In addition, the affiant stated that one day earlier an informant reported witnessing a drug sale in the Tavern. The sale was made by the bartender. The substance sold was retrieved and found to be cocaine. Again defendant was detained during the search and taken to the police station. Again a quantity of cocaine and cash was found on the defendant.