Court Opinion

ID: 9515175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:23.156834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:25.833042
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 19.] Although this is a very close question, I join the majority opinion for four reasons:
.•I. Although the two anonymous callers may have been the same person or may have collaborated with each other, there was some corroboration to support probable cause that drug crimes were being committed.
2. The law strongly favors an officer obtaining a search warrant, where the officer must go before a neutral Judge or Magistrate with an affidavit in support of a search warrant to. establish “probable cause that a crime is being committed” before intrusion into a home. State v. Meyer, 1998 SD 122, ¶ 20, 587 N.W.2d 719, 723 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)) (“Thus the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that ‘searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’ ”).
3. Although Justice Meierhenry’s writing raises valid concerns, including the statement that:
If the “corroboration” that occurred in the case is all we require, an unaccountable, anonymous caller can cause a completely innocent person’s home to be raided by simply making up a provocative and entirely untruthful story.
That statement may be true, but there is no showing that is the case here. In fact, far more constitutional violations are likely to come from intrusions into homes and vehicles by officers without search warrants, under claimed exceptions to the search warrant requirement, including (1) claimed consent, (2) exigent circumstances including hot pursuit, (3) searches incident to arrest, and (4) protective sweeps. State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126 (S.D.1982) (despite claims .by law enforcement, no exigent circumstances existed to justify warrantless search of house); State v. Bennett, 295 N.W.2d 5 (S.D.1980) (exigent circumstances justifying warrantless search were not present). See the following divided opinions: State v. Schwartz, 2004 SD 123, 689 N.W.2d 430 (whether warrantless search of defendants’ trash was an unreasonable search and seizure); State v. Hess, 2004 SD 60, 680 N.W.2d 314 (whether exigent circumstances justified officers’ warrantless entry into apartment); State v. Castleberry, 2004 SD 95, 686 N.W.2d 384 (whether defendant’s consent to search vehicle was free and voluntary); State v. Lamont, 2001 SD 92, 631 N.W.2d 603 (whether exigent circumstances justified entering defendant’s motel room, to search and arrest him); State v. Brassfield, 2000 SD 110, 615 N.W.2d 628 (whether warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle incident to his arrest was unconstitutional).
*2974. Finally, the coincidence of the corroboration of the license plates, along with the statements within the two anonymous telephone calls indicates that it was more probable than not that drug crimes were being committed, resulting in probable cause to support this search warrant.