Opinion ID: 901903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Insufficient corroboration

Text: [¶ 13.] Gilmore first alleges two flaws in the affidavit sworn to the issuing court: first, failure by law enforcement to sufficiently corroborate the information provided by the CI, and second, omission of the CI's criminal history and current charges stemming from California. On March 21, 2007, the CI informed law enforcement of the following information: (1) On March 19, 2007, the CI personally purchased one gram of crystal meth for $120 from an older white male named Doug, who resides in a trailer house located at 4606 W. 16th Place in Sioux Falls; (2) Doug used a bicycle rather than an automobile as a means of transportation; and (3) Doug may have a drug connection in Colorado. [¶ 14.] Detective Walsh corroborated most of this information. Gilmore complains about the manner of corroboration. Without citing any supporting authority, Gilmore argues that Detective Walsh should have: (1) requested the CI to identify Gilmore in person; (2) performed a trash pull to match Gilmore's name with the address; and (3) included information in the affidavit regarding investigations into the other tips provided by the CI. We disagree. [¶ 15.] Detective Walsh determined that, according to the utility records, Gilmore was the account holder for the residence located at the given address. Furthermore, the telephone number provided by the utility company matched the telephone number registered to Gilmore as indicated in law enforcement files. In addition, Gilmore, the telephone number, and the address were all linked using 911 records. There was also a bicycle located on the porch of the residence. During a period of surveillance, Detective Walsh witnessed a man riding the bicycle and, based upon a driver's license photo, identified the rider as Gilmore. Lastly, Detective Walsh witnessed a vehicle with Colorado plates parked in front of Gilmore's residence. Upon investigating, he determined that the vehicle belonged to Greer, an individual with an active arrest warrant for possession of drug paraphernalia. [¶ 16.] The one piece of information that could not be absolutely verified, because it occurred in the past, was the firsthand drug transaction in which the CI participated. Corroboration of an informant's tip by independent police work undoubtedly strengthens the value of the information. Gates, 462 U.S. at 241, 103 S.Ct. at 2334. However, not every piece of information provided by an informant requires corroboration. `Because an informant is right about some things, he is more probably right about other facts. . . .' Gates, 462 U.S. at 244, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 (quoting Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 427, 89 S.Ct. at 594 (White, J., concurring)). Gilmore claims that law enforcement should have conducted a controlled buy to substantiate the CI's tip; however, he cites no authority requiring the same. Detective Walsh nonetheless set forth in his affidavit several occurrences in which Gilmore previously associated with individuals convicted of drug crimes as well as instances in which Gilmore was currently associating with individuals known to be drug users and/or distributors. To say that this coincidence of information was sufficient to support a reasonable belief of the officers that [Gilmore was involved in drug-related criminal activity] is to indulge in understatement. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 36, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1631, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). [¶ 17.] In State v. Raveydts , we held that verifying license plate numbers on vehicles parked outside an alleged drug dealer's residence, in addition to an informant's firsthand observation of wrongdoing, is sufficient corroboration if the license plate numbers belong to persons known to be involved in illegal drug activity. 2004 SD 134, ¶¶ 12-14, 691 N.W.2d at 295-96. Corroboration by personal `surveillance [or] observation of unusual civilian or vehicular traffic at the address' is not essential to a probable cause determination. See id. As explained, Detective Walsh did more than required under Raveydts. [¶ 18.] It is recognized that Detective Walsh's corroboration focused on innocent facts. But [c]ombinations of lawful and suspicious circumstances may lead to a justifiable inference of criminal activity. State v. Belmontes, 2000 SD 115, ¶ 31, 615 N.W.2d 634, 642 (Konenkamp, J., concurring in result) ([I]nnocent behavior frequently will provide the basis for a showing of probable cause; to require otherwise would be to sub silentio impose a drastically more rigorous definition of probable cause than the security of our citizens demands. (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 243 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 n. 13)). Therefore, the corroboration sufficiently ensured the reliability of the information supplied by the CI.