Opinion ID: 169215
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Search Warrant

Text: On January 8, 2004, Special Agent Brian Carroll of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation applied for a search warrant to search the defendant’s home at 10782 Kettle W ay in Dodge City, Kansas for paraphernalia used in the packaging and distribution of methamphetamine. In support of his request, SA Carroll submitted a sworn affidavit that primarily detailed the drug trafficking activities of defendant’s brother, Felipe Bedolla, but included several allegations linking defendant to those activities. The affidavit states that on December 4, 2003, a cooperating individual (“CI”) who sold methamphetamine for Felipe 1 told officers of the Emporia Police Department (“EPD”) that Felipe was in Emporia to collect money for previous sales of methamphetamine and that he was staying at local motel. Based on that tip, EPD officers found Felipe’s car at a motel and witnessed Felipe and a man 1 W e will refer to Felipe Bedolla by his first name so as not to confuse him with the defendant. -2- later determined to be defendant get into the car and drive to the CI’s home, where the CI paid money to Felipe. The police then followed Felipe and defendant to a bank where Felipe made a deposit. A week later, on December 11, 2003, the police intercepted a phone call between Felipe and the CI in which Felipe told the C I that he was on his way to Emporia to deliver more methamphetamine. Over the course of the next two days, an undercover agent accompanied the CI to his meetings with Felipe and witnessed the two exchanging money and methamphetamine. The affidavit continues that on January 5, 2004, defendant was arrested along with Felipe, Juan Carlos Verducco-Camarena, and others on drug charges relating to an ongoing narcotics investigation. The affidavit states that at the time of their arrest, the Bedolla brothers had been in Emporia for two days trying to collect money from the CI. W hen defendant was booked into the county jail, he listed 10782 Kettle W ay as his permanent address. The affidavit goes on to describe a January 6, 2004, police interview of someone whose name has been redacted. W e cannot tell from the record or the parties’ briefs w hether this unknown person is Verducco-Camarena or the CI or, indeed, whether they are one and the same. In any event, this person told the officers conducting the interview that he had been selling methamphetamine for Felipe in the Emporia area for 8 or 9 months. He said that Felipe traveled from Dodge City to Emporia every Sunday to collect money and deliver methamphetamine and that sometimes defendant -3- accompanied Felipe on these trips. This same person also described the location of w hat he believed to be Felipe’s home in D odge City, which one of the officers familiar with the area recognized as 10782 Kettle W ay. The person also told the officers that Felipe told him that defendant assisted Felipe in cutting the methamphetamine. He further “advised that the [cutting] took place in the basement of Felipe’s home on Kettle W ay.” R. doc. 27 at A4. 2 Based on this information a magistrate judge issued a warrant at 4:00 p.m. on January 8, 2004, authorizing a document search of the Kettle W ay residence. It specifically identified the following items to be searched for and seized: Documents, recipes, notes, books, and pamphlets, evidence of ownership, control and occupancy of the property . . . records of drug sales distribution and production, activities and confederates . . . records of drug proceeds and/or the proceeds themselves . . . weapons. Id. at A6. According to the warrant return, dated January 9, 2004, the search was executed at 5:14 p.m. on January 8 and completed at 11:00 p.m. In addition to documents and drug paraphernalia, officers found methamphetamine, which is listed as seized property in the warrant return. 2 The parties vigorously dispute whether the person referenced in SA Carroll’s affidavit personally observed defendant cutting the methamphetamine or whether this information is hearsay obtained from Felipe. It is not relevant to our disposition, however, because, as we explain below, we can affirm the district court’s ruling without deciding whether SA Carroll’s affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause. -4-