Opinion ID: 1981146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The August 1995 Search Warrant of Mr. Dockery's Residence

Text: Mr. Dockery's second argument concerns the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained during a search warrant of his residence on August 10, 1995. He contends that the information police submitted in obtaining the search warrant did not establish probable cause, and therefore, the warrant was defective. He claims that two of the sources that the officers relied upon reported wrongdoing allegedly committed by [him] six ... and ... four years prior to the affidavit, and [ ], in [ ] entirely different location[s]. Id. He further maintains that the affidavit fails to indicate that there were signs ... of [ ] drug trafficking in May 1995 when the police sought to arrest Mr. Bullock at the Southern Avenue premises. Id. at 10. In contrast to Mr. Dockery's arguments, the government claims that under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the issuance of the search warrant was based on probable cause. The government emphasizes Mr. Dockery's failure to consider several paragraphs of the affidavit which, among other things, include a statement by an informant indicating that Mr. Dockery had been the leader of a drug organization since 1989 and another statement by an eyewitness to a drive-by shooting on July 3, 1995 ... identif[ying Mr. Dockery] as one of the shooters. In reviewing a challenge to the validity of a warrant, [this Court] considers only the content of the supporting affidavit. Chavez-Quintanilla v. United States, 564, 788 A.2d at 567 (D.C.2002). In so doing ... [it] accord[s] deference to the judicial decision of the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant, so long as there is a substantial basis for concluding the existence of probable cause. Id. (citations omitted). Furthermore, probable cause to search ... is measured by the totality of the circumstances [and] ... [t]his question ... `is to be viewed from the vantage point of a prudent, reasonably cautious police officer ... guided by his experience and training. Id. (quoting United States v. Davis, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 402, 458 F.2d 819, 821 (D.C.Cir.1972) (internal citation omitted)). Thus the question [to be] decide [d], giving deference to the judge who issued the warrant, is whether there was a substantial basis in the affidavit supporting the warrant to conclude, under the circumstances, that there was good reason to believe that [evidence of drug distribution and Mr. Dockery's involvement in the murder of Mr. Ivy] were likely to be in his apartment at 4165 Southern Avenue. Id. Furthermore, [i]nstead of measuring staleness solely by counting the days on a calendar, courts must also concern themselves with the following variables: the character of the crime [ ], the [background of the] criminal, the thing to be seized[, and] the place to be searched. United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 923-24 (6th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Vaandering, 50 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir.1995) (nearly two-year-old information not stale because of ongoing criminal enterprise). In addition, [t]he issuance of a warrant [] signifies that a judicial officer has made a determination that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information underlying the warrant is true and is of sufficient reliability and timeliness to justify a search. Williams v. United States, 576 A.2d 700, 704 (D.C.1990). This case involved ongoing criminal activity relating to drugs and the activities of rival drug organizations. According to paragraph fourteen of the affidavit accompanying the warrant, a police source stated that [Mr.] Dockery was the leader of a crack cocaine distribution organization that operated in various locations in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Paragraph 15 reveals that the same source told police Mr. Dockery travel[s] to New York City to pick up cocaine to be sold by himself and members of his organization.... and that upon his return to the Washington, D.C. area, [Mr.] Dockery would immediately take the cocaine to 4165 Southern Avenue, Apartment T2, Capitol Heights, Maryland ... to cook the cocaine powder into crack and prepare it for distribution. Id., p. 5. Paragraph seventeen indicates that another source informed police in July and August 1995, that Mr. Dockery had headed a drug organization since early 1989 and he has witnessed [Mr.] Dockery delivering crack cocaine to be sold by members of his organization in the area of the 1600 block of E Street, N.E. and 217 51st Street, N.E., Apartment 22. Id. And, in paragraph nineteen, police declared that another source told them [Mr.] Dockery is known to be armed with a handgun at all times ... [and that he saw] [Mr.] Dockery in possession of a handgun as recently as the last week of July, 1995. Id., p. 6. Furthermore, paragraph twenty states that the same source told police that a member of [Mr.] Dockery's organization [] told [him] that he has been to Dockery's apartment at Southern Avenue and sold drugs at that location for [Mr.] Dockery as recently as June, 1995. Id. According to paragraph twenty-three, surveillance[ ] conducted [by the police] from April, 1995 to [the early part of August, 1995] at 4165 Southern Avenue ... revealed several vehicles associated with [Mr.] Dockery and his organization [ ] parked in the front and rear of [his apartment]. Id. at pp. 6-7. Paragraph twenty-six states that an eyewitness to a drive-by shooting on July 3, 1995 along E Street, Northeast, positively identified one of the shooters as Jasper Dockery. Id. at p. 7. And, paragraph twenty-seven states that another eyewitness placed [Mr. Dockery] on the scene at the time of the murder of Mr. Ivy on July 27, 1995, in front of 1629 E Street, Northeast. Id. at p. 8. Clearly, the affidavit in support of the search warrant reflected ongoing criminal activity on the part of Mr. Dockery and others, from 1989 to June and July 1995. Thus, as in Vaandering, supra, 50 F.3d at 700, the older information was coupled with recently obtained information and the trial court could properly find that this evidence was not stale and was an allowable base upon which to find probable cause. Moreover, the information was based on confidential sources, and that information was verified and corroborated by independent investigation. The information was quite specific in its details, providing a substantial basis, both factual and legal, for the trial judge's find[ing] of probable cause to believe that evidence of drug distribution and the murder of Mr. Ivy would be found at Mr. Dockery's apartment. [9]