Opinion ID: 896028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Footprint Evidence

Text: [¶ 9] Damron argues the footprint evidence should be disregarded or read out of the affidavit because it gave the magistrate a false impression of what occurred. Damron relies on State v. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d 272 (N.D.1989), for the proposition false material should not be considered when reviewing probable cause. In Morrison, we applied the test set out in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), for determining whether a statement in an affidavit is false. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d at 274. Under Franks, the United States Supreme Court held negligence or innocent mistakes are insufficient to establish recklessness or deliberate falsity. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. at 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d at 682; see also State v. Padgett, 393 N.W.2d 754, 757 (N.D.1986). Under Morrison, a defendant is required to prove a statement is in fact false, and the inclusion of the false statement amounted to perjury or reckless disregard for the truth. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d at 275. In Morrison, the defendant offered unrebutted evidence showing statements in the search warrant affidavit were not true. Id. at 276. The statements offered involved shoe prints and modus operandi, but, in actuality, the officer had no basis in fact for his statements. Id. In Morrison, we held the falsity was so blatant it amounted to a reckless disregard for the truth. Id. This case is clearly distinguishable from Morrison. Unlike the officer in Morrison, Officer Stone did not fabricate a footprint outside of Damron's apartment matching a footprint near the crime scene. Here, the evidence presented supports the existence of the footprint. [¶ 10] Whether or not the defendant has demonstrated recklessness or deliberate falsity is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 275. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, although there may be some evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. Id. The record shows some of the information in a police report submitted by Officer Paul Lies is not consistent with some of the information in Officer Stone's affidavit. The police report states the first footprint Officer Stone and Agent Loucks found did not match the footprint near the burglary site. However, Officer Lies did find a matching footprint in the alley near Damron's apartment. Officer Lies believed that footprint to be the footprint relied on in securing the search warrant for the apartment. [¶ 11] Two suppression hearings were held, during which the trial court considered Damron's allegations of false statements made by Officer Stone. The trial court twice denied Damron's motion to suppress. While the trial court did not make a specific finding on the allegations of falsity, we have previously recognized findings to be implied in a trial court's ruling denying a suppression motion. See State v. Erickson, 496 N.W.2d 555, 559-60 (N.D.1993) (holding trial court's implicit finding not clearly erroneous). By denying the motion to suppress, the trial court implicitly rejected Damron's allegations that incorrect statements made by Officer Stone were made intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth. [¶ 12] Damron has not shown the information Officer Stone offered in his affidavit was intentionally misrepresented. Officer Stone believed he had a footprint that matched the footprint near the crime scene. Officer Lies, the police photographer gathering the footprint evidence, told Officer Stone those footprints did not match, but later informed Officer Stone that he had found another footprint that did match. According to his testimony, Officer Lies informed Officer Stone of the matching footprint before Officer Stone applied for the search warrant. We are not convinced the trial court's implicit finding was clearly erroneous. [¶ 13] Damron also argues Officer Stone's description of the footprint as just outside of Site on Sound misled the magistrate, because Stone failed to inform the magistrate the footprint was nearly 600 feet away from the Site on Sound building. However, Damron fails to note the footprint was found from following identifiable tracks in deep snow from a telephone pole outside of the store to a point where the footprint could be clearly identified. The depth of the snow made it impossible to get a clearly identifiable footprint closer to Site on Sound. A party challenging the validity of a search warrant on the basis the information was intentionally or recklessly omitted from the affidavit in support of the warrant must demonstrate the information would have been material to the magistrate's finding. State v. Johnson, 531 N.W.2d 275, 278 (N.D.1995). Damron has not shown Officer Stone's failure to inform the magistrate of the exact distance was materially misleading. We do not believe characterizing the footprint as being just outside Site on Sound was materially misleading; therefore, the trial court's finding was not clearly erroneous.