Court Opinion

ID: 9560274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:46:27.466462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:37.000464
License: Public Domain

OPINION
PARKS, Presiding Judge:
The appellant, Dennis Bates Fletcher, was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-81-5144, for the offense of Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of a Felony. Punishment was assessed at ten (10) years imprisonment.
On November 4, 1981, law enforcement officers in Oklahoma County simultaneously executed two search warrants on separate locations in downtown Oklahoma City. One warrant was executed at the National Bonding Company, 706 Robert S. Kerr Ave. The appellant was an employee of the bonding firm, and had executed a lease for the building in that capacity. A second warrant was served at 411 Couch Drive. The appellant, again acting as agent for the National Bonding Company, had also rented this building. Inside the two locations police found office furniture stolen August 28, 1981 from the Scott-Rice Company Warehouse. Appellant was linked to the stolen furniture through the testimony of Ron Burnett, who claimed he burglarized the warehouse and stole the furniture at the request of appellant. Burnett claimed he received over $2,000 from the appellant for the furniture. Appellant testified he purchased the furniture from Burnett in good faith, and did not know it had been stolen.
Appellant has alleged seven assignments of error in his brief-in-chief. We find that appellant’s second assignment has merit, and this case must be reversed on that basis. In that proposition, the appellant claims the District Court erred in sustaining the State’s “Rule Six” 1 appeal from the order of the preliminary hearing magistrate suppressing all evidence seized as a result of the two searches.
The record regarding this issue reflects that the preliminary hearing magistrate, Special District Judge Jim Pearson, conducted a detailed hearing on the merits of the motion to suppress, a hearing which lasted two full days and involved the calling of thirteen (13) witnesses. At the conclusion of that hearing, the magistrate deliberated three days before issuing a seven-page order granting the motion to suppress. The order contained detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State announced its intention to appeal this adverse ruling via “Rule Six” procedure, and the magistrate obligingly agreed to continue the remainder of the preliminary hearing. On the last day available for a timely ruling, the case was assigned to District Judge William Kessler, who on that afternoon, simply issued an Order stating that the “court reverses [the suppression order] and remands for further preliminary hearing.” Judge Kessler issued no opinion or otherwise explained how the magistrate erred in suppressing the evidence.
I.
We first address the scope of the “Rule Six” appeal vehicle. The “Rule Six” appeal is a creature of, and is governed solely by, the Rules of this Court. Its purpose is simply to afford the State “the right to appeal an adverse ruling or order of a magistrate sustaining a motion to suppress evidence, quashing an information, sustaining a plea to jurisdiction or a demurrer to *1192the information, or an order discharging a defendant at the preliminary examination because of insufficiency of the evidence ...” Rule 6, supra n. 1. If appeal is brought in the proper manner, see Rule 6.1, 6.2, the case is first reviewed by the District Court. If an appeal to the District Court is unsuccessful, an appeal may then be lodged with this Court. Rule 6.6. The defendant, however, has no right under the Rule to appeal to this Court an order of the District Court reversing the magistrate’s ruling or order.
The District Court is limited, however, in reviewing the magistrate’s decision for errors of law only. Rule 6.5 states:
In the event the state’s application is sustained and the reviewing judge determines the magistrate’s adverse ruling or order to be an error of law, the judge shall remand the cause to the magistrate with directions to enter a proper order. [Emphasis added.]
Under the “Rule Six” process, the District Court is acting in the capacity of an appellate court. As such, it is bound by the factual findings of the lower court, unless these findings have no support in the record. See Ellis v. State, 476 P.2d 352 (Okl.Cr.1970) (ruling of trial court on motion to suppress will be sustained where there is any competent evidence in the record to sustain the judgment of the court). See also Mitchell v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 184, 119 P.2d 99, 100 (1941).
Accordingly, the reviewing judge was limited in his consideration of the State’s “Rule Six” appeal to any errors of law the magistrate might have made. We have reviewed the Order of the magistrate and find it is correct as a matter of law.
II.
The magistrate found two basis for sustaining the motion to suppress evidence, as it related to the case as finally tried. First, the magistrate found that the search warrants were improperly executed at night, in violation of 22 O.S. 1981, § 1230. Second, the magistrate found that probable cause was lacking, or alternatively, that the issuing judge failed to knowingly consider the affidavits before issuing the warrants.
A.
The magistrate’s holding that the search was improperly conducted in the nighttime involved his interpretation of 22 O.S. 1981, § 1230, and his findings of fact as they related to this issue. Section 1230 provides:
The judge shall insert a direction in the warrant that it be served in the daytime, unless the affidavits be positive that the property is on the person, or in the place to be searched, and the judge finds that there is likelihood that the property named in the search warrant will be destroyed, moved or concealed. In which case the judge may insert a direction that it be served at any time of the day or night.
In his application of this statute, the magistrate made the following conclusions of law and findings of fact:
Title 22 O.S. § 1230 was amended to require a specific finding by the magistrate ‘that there is likelihood that the property named in the search warrant will be destroyed, moved or concealed’ before a magistrate is empowered to authorize a night search. The affidavit must allege the facts from which the magistrate may reach the required conclusion. There is nothing in either affidavit to show the required specific facts or even thé conclusion that the property will be destroyed, moved or concealed. The affidavit alleges that the last theft occurred on September 8, 1981, that it was moved at an unknown date to the premises to be searched and that it would at a later time be sold for profit. There is no reason to believe from the affidavit that the property would not be there when a daylight search was proper. The court finds that the execution was begun in the nighttime. The statute places a mandatory duty on the magistrate to restrict the execution to daytime unless the necessary facts are alleged by the affiant and found by the magistrate.
*1193We agree with the magistrate’s conclusions. Section 1230 requires the issuing judge to make a finding that the property contained in the warrant will be destroyed, moved or concealed before he may exercise his discretion to authorize a nighttime search. See Filgueras v. State, 668 P.2d 1172 (Okl.Cr.1983). In this case there is nothing in either affidavit to indicate that the property would be lost without a nighttime search. Cf. Campbell v. State 651 P.2d 696, 698 (Okl.Cr.1982) (Nighttime search was authorized where affiant had received information that the manufacture of the amphetamines, the object of the search, would begin at midnight; it was logical conclusion that the drugs would be moved or concealed after their manufacture); Panther v. State, 637 P.2d 1267, 1269 (Okl.Cr.1981) (Nighttime search approved where affidavit stated that defendant had a source for getting rid of stolen property and also that he had trouble with people living at the house where they were stored; also, affidavit was supplemented with affiant’s statement that the property might be disposed of quickly). Instead, the record shows the request for nighttime authorization was almost an afterthought of the officers. According to the officers’ testimony, after the warrants were signed, the detectives became concerned because nightfall was “very, very close.” Returning to the judge’s chamber to express this concern, the issuing judge, without receiving any additional information concerning the need for a nighttime search, simply made a notation on one warrant permitting execution at night, and authorized one of the officers to make a similar notation on the other. Under these circumstances, we agree with the magistrate’s conclusion that the nighttime searches were improper.
B.
Regarding the second infirmity in the search warrant process, the preliminary hearing magistrate entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
The police department presented the magistrate with two search warrants absolutely identical except for one paragraph in the middle of the first page which described different locations. The magistrate testified that he signed one search warrant, although that testimony was later amended to say that his signature appeared on both warrants.
The question then arises is how many different search warrants did the magistrate knowingly consider. In other words, did the magistrate think he was signing two copies of one warrant or the original of each of two warrants with the identical items to be seized at two different locations.
The court finds there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the magistrate knowingly considered and signed two separate warrants. The magistrate was unable to recall the number of warrants he considered. This by itself is not determinative. All of the evidence taken together does not establish what happened. However, the decision to suppress all the evidence does not depend on the answer to this question. If the magistrate knowingly signed only one warrant, the other warrant is obviously not valid for the reason the magistrate did not make his independent examination. The testimony is unsatisfactory for this Court to determine which warrant was knowingly signed, and, therefore, the State cannot establish the search of either premises under a valid warrant.
However, if the magistrate believed he was signing two separate warrants, then the issue arises as to whether he had probable cause to issue the warrants. The magistrate must independently determine from an examination of the affidavit that there are sufficient facts from which the magistrate could determine that the informant was reliable; that is, that the affiant had purchased stolen goods in an undercover capacity based upon the information of this informer. The magistrate must also determine whether the facts support the validity of the informant’s conclusion the items are where he says they are. That is, there must be sufficient basis in the affidavit from which the informer could conclude *1194the items to be seized are in the locations stated. Considering a single affidavit without the other, there are sufficient indication based on his personal observation within the past twenty-four hours.
The problem, however, is that the affidavit in each case makes the same identical allegations. The property is alleged to be in two locations at the same time. Taking the affidavits together, it is clear the informant is wrong. The same described property cannot be at two places at the same time and a magistrate would err if he knowingly signed both warrants. The evidence is undisputed that both warrants were presented by the af-fiant at the same time to the magistrate. There would be no way from the face of the affidavit to know which location the informant meant.
There are insufficient facts, when the affidavits are considered together, for a magistrate to conclude the informant is providing reliable information.
If the magistrate knowingly considered one warrant, we do not know which was considered. If the magistrate considered both there was insufficient cause to issue the warrants.
In either situation, the issuance of both warrants was error and all items seized are inadmissible.
The testimony of the issuing judge at the preliminary hearing was that he had issued only one warrant, the warrant authorizing the search at 706 Robert S. Kerr Ave. Even after checking his own records, the issuing judge continued to maintain he had issued just one search warrant. However, the State later recalled the judge, and presented for his examination the affidavit and search warrant for 411 Couch Drive. The issuing judge then testified, “It appears that I have signed both affidavits, or acknowledged the signature of [the officer] on both affidavits.” He again testified, however, that he could not recall the officers seeking two warrants, nor could he recall if he signed the second warrant under the belief it was a copy of the first. He refused to answer whether he would knowingly issue two search warrants under the same circumstances.
Title 22 O.S. 1981, § 1221, requires that all search warrants be signed by a “magistrate.” The Fourth Amendment requires that the magistrate must be “neutral and detached” and “must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search.” Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 350, 92 S.Ct. 2119, 2123, 32 L.Ed.2d 783 (1972). As part of this duty, the issuing magistrate must not only determine that the affidavit and warrant are in the proper form, but that the person presenting the affidavit knows its contents and wants to, and does, swear to the same. Southard v. State, 297 P.2d 585 (Okl.Cr.1956). More importantly, the issuing magistrate “must judge for himself the persuasiveness of the facts relied on by a complaining officer to show probable cause. He should not accept without question the complainant’s mere conclusion....” Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 486, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 1250, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958). Faithful performance of these duties by the issuing judge compliments and strengthens the purpose of the magistrate requirement, which is to interpose a neutral figure between the citizen and the police officer “engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948).
We agree with the preliminary hearing magistrate that, due to his findings regarding this issue, it cannot be said the requirement of a neutral and detached magistrate was fulfilled. Furthermore, it is apparent that had the warrants been read together, no search warrants would have been issued. With the exception of the addresses in which the property allegedly would be found, the affidavits were identical. We agree with the magistrate that in such a circumstance, the reliability of the informant was not established, and, therefore, probable cause did not exist to issue the warrants.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the conviction herein, and REMAND this case for *1195further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
BRETT, J., concurs.
BUSSEY, J., dissents.

. Rule 6.1, et seq., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.1981, ch. 18, App.