Opinion ID: 2500041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 7

Text: ¶ 5 Fundamental principles set the stage for our analysis. A search warrant shall issue only on probable cause. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Wash. Const. art. I, § 7. The warrant must be supported by an affidavit that particularly identifies the place to be searched and items to be seized. Id. To establish probable cause, the affidavit must set forth sufficient facts to convince a reasonable person of the probability the defendant is engaged in criminal activity and that evidence of criminal activity can be found at the place to be searched. State v. Maddox, 152 Wash.2d 499, 509, 98 P.3d 1199 (2004). Even though the affidavit may be based on an unidentified informant's tip, the affidavit must contain some of the underlying circumstances that led the informant to believe that evidence could be found at the specified location. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). [1] In particular, the affidavit must set forth the underlying circumstances specifically enough that the magistrate can independently judge the validity of both the affiant's and informant's conclusions. [2] Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 413, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). ¶ 6 The requirement that a magistrate issue a search warrant is based on another fundamental principle: the determination of probable cause must be made by a magistrate based on the facts presented to the magistrate, instead of being made by police officers in the field. As the United States Supreme Court has explained: The reasons for this rule go to the foundations of the Fourth Amendment.... The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Aguilar, 378 U.S. at 111, 84 S.Ct. 1509 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948)). The facts set forth in the affidavit must support the conclusion that the evidence is probably at the premises to be searched at the time the warrant is issued. State v. Partin, 88 Wash.2d 899, 903, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). We evaluate an affidavit in a commonsense manner, rather than hypertechnically, and any doubts are resolved in favor of the warrant. State v. Jackson, 150 Wash.2d 251, 265, 76 P.3d 217 (2003) ( Jackson II). However, the [reviewing] court must still insist that the magistrate perform his `neutral and detached' function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police. Aguilar, 378 U.S. at 111, 84 S.Ct. 1509 (quoting Johnson, 333 U.S. at 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 367).