Opinion ID: 2637001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the redacted affidavit supports a finding of probable cause

Text: We now proceed to evaluate whether the redacted affidavit established probable cause to support the search warrant. Because we must restrict our probable cause analysis to the four corners of the affidavit, we begin by omitting from the affidavit the information obtained during the unconstitutional warrantless search of the Hebert residence and outlining the remaining alleged facts. The remaining information follows: 1. Police officers discover an unidentified Caucasian female body in the trunk of a car at 1597 Valentia Street. 2. The victim's head shows indications of trauma to the front and back. It appears to be a blunt force type injury. 3. The victim is wearing one sandal; her eyeglasses are askew on her head; and she has grease or oil on her pants. 4. A motor vehicle report indicates that the vehicle's license plates list to Carol Hebert at 655 South Monroe Way in Denver. Carol Hebert's driver's license description matches that of the victim. 5. Two witnesses saw the car parked and running at the Valentia Street location all day on April 12. They decided to attempt to contact the owner, discovered the body in the trunk, and called police. 6. Officers responded to 655 South Monroe Way. They observed a 1991 Honda four door car with a license plate listing to Carol and Hal Hebert at the residence. 7. Charles Anderson, a neighbor living at 670 South Monroe Way, told police at the South Monroe location that he had seen Defendant backing the white Toyota into the garage of the residence at about 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2001. Anderson told police that he believed Defendant's actions were unusual because Defendant did not drive the white Toyota. Anderson said that Carol Hebert usually drove that vehicle. He also thought it was unusual for Defendant to back the car into the garage. 8. At about 2:45 a.m. on April 12, Officer Tim Blair observed Defendant talking to Officers Ron Hughes and Tim Scudder. He described Defendant as agitated, ranting about missing people and how his wife was missing. Officer Blair believed the officers speaking to Defendant were concerned enough about his actions to step closer to him in order to protect themselves. The officers gave Defendant information about the missing persons unit and he left. 9. John Mason, Defendant's best friend, spoke with Defendant at midnight on the night of April 11. Defendant asked Mason if he had seen Carol Hebert. Defendant said she had left for the shopping mall at 6 p.m. He fell asleep at 8 p.m. and when he awoke at midnight he discovered she was not home. Mr. Mason told Defendant that he had not seen Carol Hebert. Mason asked Defendant if he had called police and Defendant responded that he had, but that it does no good. Whether the redacted affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause presents a close question; however, given the preference accorded to warrants in doubtful or marginal cases, Gates, 462 U.S. at 237, 103 S.Ct. 2317, and because there are sufficient facts remaining in the affidavit to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that contraband or evidence of criminal activity was located at 655 South Monroe Way, we hold that sufficient probable cause existed to support the search warrant on April 12, 2001 and October 2, 2001. We reject Defendant's argument that the affidavit contained no information that a second crime scene existed and that it failed to establish a nexus between the crime and the Hebert residence. Though there is no direct information establishing a connection between the alleged murder and the residence at 655 South Monroe Way, substantial circumstantial information and reasonable, commonsense inferences drawn from that information, establish the requisite nexus. Police did not randomly connect criminal activity to the Hebert residence; rather they associated concrete, suspicious activity with practical and commonsense conclusions about human behavior, Gates, 462 U.S. at 231, 103 S.Ct. 2317, to support the search warrant. In this case, the last place Carol Hebert was seen was at her residence the night before a body matching her description was found in her parked, running car. Moreover, at 5 p.m. on April 11, the night before the body was found, a neighbor observed Defendant backing Carol Hebert's car into the garage. The neighbor told police that it was unusual for Defendant to drive his wife's vehicle and unusual for him to back it into the garage. Later, around midnight on the evening of April 11, Defendant told Mason, his best friend, that Defendant's wife  who he claimed had gone shopping at 6 p.m. on April 11  was missing. Police also saw Defendant at a police substation, complaining that his wife was missing. Finally, witnesses reported that Carol Hebert's car was parked and running at the Valentia Street location all day on April 12. Though no direct evidence ties criminal activity to the Hebert residence, it is rational to infer that the victim's body was taken to the Valentia Street location from the Hebert residence in the trunk of her car sometime between 5 p.m. on April 11 and the morning of April 12. This explanation comports with other key facts from the affidavit: the fact that the victim was wearing only one shoe; that she had oil on the back of her pants; and that her glasses were askew on her head support a reasonable inference that her body had been moved from a different crime location. Thus the timeline, Defendant's unusual activity, the fact that Carol Hebert was last seen  according to Defendant  at the residence only one hour after Defendant's unusual action, and the victim's physical state within the trunk all support a reasonable inference that criminal activity occurred at the home and supply the necessary nexus linking Defendant's home to criminal activity. Again, our conclusion that the affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause is bolstered by the preference accorded to warrants, Gates, 462 U.S. at 237, 103 S.Ct. 2317, and the strong circumstantial evidence that the victim was allegedly murdered at the residence. [7]