Opinion ID: 2570302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶ 9] We apply a de novo standard of review when evaluating the issuance of a search warrant under Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, ¶ 9, 67 P.3d 1207, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2003). We have previously stated: Indeed, de novo review is particularly appropriate under these circumstances. The reasons which normally underlie deferring to the district court's denial of a motion to suppress  its ability to assess the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions at the hearing on the motion  are absent when reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit to support a determination of probable cause. Because art. 1, § 4 requires that all information the issuing officer relied upon to make the determination be included within the affidavit, this court is in essentially the same position as the issuing magistrate. Cordova v. State, 2001 WY 96, ¶ 10, 33 P.3d 142, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2001). [1] [¶ 10] An affidavit presented in support of a search warrant is presumed valid. Page v. State, 2003 WY 23, ¶ 9, 63 P.3d 904, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2003). Search warrant affidavits are tested by a less vigorous standard than those governing the admissibility of evidence at trial. Id. We interpret a search warrant affidavit in its totality in a `commonsense and realistic fashion.' Cordova, ¶ 29. Because of the desire to encourage law enforcement personnel to seek warrants, any doubt should be resolved by sustaining the search. Page, ¶ 9 (citing Hixson v. State, 2001 WY 99, ¶ 6, 33 P.3d 154, ¶ 6 (Wyo.2001)).