Opinion ID: 2516108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: further affiant saith naught.

Text: [¶ 9] Counsels' arguments and the district court's comments at the suppression hearing focused on the distinction between facts and conclusions. [6] One example from the affidavit may suffice to illustrate the nature of the discussion. Paragraph 3 states: Pursuant to an investigation conducted in Wheatland, Wyoming, a confidential informant purchased controlled substances from a Jason Schibig. The gist of the appellant's argument is that, from this statement, the magistrate could not tell who conducted the investigation, or who determined that an informant purchased controlled substances from Schibig. The information is not attributed to any particular source. Was Officer London part of the investigation? Did Officer London witness the purchase? Was it the informant or someone else who told Officer London of the purchase? Similar uncertainty pervades the affidavit's remaining paragraphs. [¶ 10] The prosecutor argued, and the district court concluded, that a statement such as that found in paragraph 3 of the affidavit is not a conclusion, but is a statement of fact. The State's argument is that an informant purchased drugs from Schibig is a statement of fact. The district court concluded that a failure to attribute an individual fact to a particular source does not render the fact a conclusion. [¶ 11] We do not find the attempt to categorize the statements of this particular affidavit as either facts or conclusions to be helpful in deciding the issue before us. The real difficulty with the affidavit is that it did not provide the issuing magistrate with sufficient information from which he independently could assess the reliability of the statements made. It is true that hearsay, in general, and statements of informants, in particular, may provide the basis for the issuance of a search warrant. McCutcheon v. State, 604 P.2d 537, 543 (Wyo.1979) (quoting Croker v. State, 477 P.2d 122, 127 (Wyo.1970)). Under the totality of the circumstances test, however, there must be information provided within the affidavit from which the magistrate may assess the veracity and the basis of knowledge of the persons supplying the information. Cordova, 2001 WY 96, ¶ 15, 33 P.3d at 149. In our case, because the affidavit does not identify the foundation for any of the statements, be they fact or conclusion, it is impossible to assess their reliability. [¶ 12] Officer London's affidavit simply does not compare to the affidavits found to be sufficient, for example, in Lee v. State, 2 P.3d 517, 521-25 (Wyo.2000); Southworth, 913 P.2d at 447-49; and Hall, 911 P.2d at 1368-69. Nor does it contain the confirm[ations] by the personal knowledge seen in the affidavit approved in Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 312 (Wyo.1999). For a judge or magistrate to issue a search warrant, the affidavit of probable cause must contain sufficient information for an independent determination of the reliability of the statements made therein, which shall include sufficient identification of the source of the information. [7]