Opinion ID: 430735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: fred and carolyn landis

Text: 9 The search of the Landis residence presents a much closer question. The portions of Special Agent Gregory's affidavit that pertain to the Landis residence relate the following facts: 10 1. On June 8, 1982, a confidential source, Source # 3, informed DEA agents that Lee Norman Clark had gone to Chico, California to manufacture methamphetamine. Source # 3 said that Clark was currently at Landis' address in Chico, and that she 1 had seen glassware which [she] knows is used for the manufacture of methamphetamine at that address. 11 2. Source # 3 had no criminal record, and she had previously given reliable information to DEA agents. 12 3. Agent Gregory travelled to the Landis residence on June 8, 1982 and saw two of Lee Norman Clark's vehicles there--one car and one truck. 13 4. On that same day, Agent Gregory was able to hear sounds emanating from an outbuilding at the Landis residence that sounded like a pump and running water and that were consistent with sounds I have heard at other clandestine laboratory sites. 14 5. On June 9, 1982, agents telephoned Fred Landis' business and were told that Landis would be out of town for the next five days. Agents also learned from other confidential sources that Clark recently had been observed to be absent from his own residence for extended periods of time. Gregory knew from experience that the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine is a time-consuming process. 15 6. Landis' residence is in a remote, isolated location with limited access to the property, which was also consistent with Gregory's knowledge of clandestine laboratories. 16 7. Telephone tolls of the Landises and Clark revealed calls to businesses that supply glassware and chemicals which can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. 17 The only explicit association between the Landis residence and the criminal manufacture of methamphetamine was provided by Source # 3. To credit a confidential source's information in making a probable cause determination, the affidavit should support an inference that the source was trustworthy and that the source's accusation of criminal activity was made on the basis of information obtained in a reliable way. United States v. Pryba, 502 F.2d 391, 402 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1127, 95 S.Ct. 815, 42 L.Ed.2d 828 (1975); see Satchell v. Cardwell, 653 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1154, 102 S.Ct. 1026, 71 L.Ed.2d 311 (1982). We think the facts in the affidavit, taken as a whole, did provide a substantial basis for Judge Halbert to credit Source # 3's information and conclude that criminal activity probably was taking place. 18 First, Source # 3's information was reliable in the past and her current information was based on her personal observation of distinctive glassware. Those facts lend credibility to a confidential source. See United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S.Ct. 775, 46 L.Ed.2d 637 (1976). 19 Second, her information was corroborated to a significant degree by the agents' investigation. Source # 3 said that Lee Norman Clark would be at the Landis residence; not one but two of his vehicles were identified there. Furthermore, Agent Gregory heard distinctive sounds coming from an outbuilding on the property. Although Agent Gregory likened the sounds to those of a pump and running water, which at first blush sounds innocuous enough, a DEA agent's special training and experience may enable him reasonably to suspect that criminal activity is afoot from observing what might appear innocuous to the uninitiated. United States v. Woods, 720 F.2d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir.1983). 20 Our conclusion here is not inconsistent with United States v. Tate, 694 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.1982), petition for cert. filed, 52 U.S.L.W. 3011 (U.S. July 8, 1983) (No. 83-24). In Tate, an informant smelled a strong odor of ether emanating from the defendants' premises. Officers corroborated the informant's observation and told the magistrate that the manufacture of phencyclidine (PCP) emits a strong odor of ether. We held that the smell of a substance having many innocuous uses, without more, does not establish probable cause to search. Id. at 1220-21. Here, however, the sounds like that of a pump and running water did not stand alone. The informant stated that methamphetamine manufacture was taking place--a factor conspicuously absent in Tate, id. at 1221--and the DEA agent's observations corroborated that information. 21 Finally, Lee Clark's presence at the Landis residence with glassware used in a chemical manufacturing operation, combined with the overwhelming indications provided by Source # 1 that Lee Clark was a methamphetamine manufacturer, further buttressed Source # 3's conclusion that methamphetamine was being manufactured at the Landis residence. Interlocking tips from different confidential informants enhance the credibility of each. United States v. Weinrich, 586 F.2d 481, 490 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 927, 99 S.Ct. 2041, 60 L.Ed.2d 402 (1979); United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856, 863-64 (5th Cir.1978); see Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); United States v. Freitas, 716 F.2d 1216, 1222 (9th Cir.1983). 22 Thus, when confronted with the affidavit in this case we cannot say that there was no substantial basis for Judge Halbert to believe Source # 3 and thereby find a probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity [which] is the standard of probable cause. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 590, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). 23 The judgments of conviction appealed from are AFFIRMED.