Court Opinion

ID: 9621689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:03:34.533539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:29.971624
License: Public Domain

Armstrong, J.
(dissenting) — Because I believe the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient to show the reliability of the informant, I respectfully dissent.
The State must establish -with facts in the search warrant affidavit the reliability of an undisclosed citizen informant. State v. Northness, 20 Wn. App. 551, 554, 582 P.2d 546 (1978). Such reliability can be “corroborated by description of him, his purpose for being at the locus of the crime, and the reason for his desire to remain anonymous.” State v. Chatmon, 9 Wn. App. 741, 748, 515 P.2d 530 (1973).
In State v. Mickle, 53 Wn. App. 39, 765 P.2d 331 (1988), the police used information obtained from an undisclosed citizen informant to get a search warrant. The affidavit recited that the informant was a property owner, had no criminal record and owned his or her own business. The court held that this information was insufficient to provide the magistrate with a basis to judge the informant’s credibility. Similarly, in State v. Franklin, 49 Wn. App. 106, 741 P.2d 83 (1987), the police officer used information from a confidential citizen informant and identified the informant as an “ ‘upstanding citizen with no criminal record and whose only motive for supplying the police with . . . information is to thwart a crime . . . [.]’ ” Franklin, 49 Wn. App. at 107 (alteration in original). The officer also reported that the informant wished to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. The court held this information did not supply sufficient facts from which the magistrate could determine that the informant was credible. And we have held that an officer’s description that a confidential citizen informant *881“is acting out of sense of civic duty, is not seeking any monetary compensation or leniency, and has never been arrested” insufficient to show credibility. State v. Ibarra, 61 Wn. App. 695, 701, 812 P.2d 114 (1991).
But in State v. Berlin, 46 Wn. App 587, 731 P.2d 548 (1987), Division One held sufficient a description of the confidential citizen informants as “concerned citizens involved [who] had no criminal background, came forward voluntarily, gave the appearance of being an honest citizen, and gave to affiant his or her name, phone number, and address. ...” Berlin, 46 Wn. App. at 589. The additional facts in Berlin, not given in Franklin, Mickle, or Ibarra are the phone numbers and addresses the informants gave to the police. And, although the court did not discuss it as a corroborating circumstance, in Berlin the officer had received reports from three citizen informants. Berlin, 46 Wn. App. at 588.
Here, the confidential informant is described only as a resident of nine years and a registered voter with no criminal record.8 The officer did not report receiving the informant’s phone number or address. Froviding such information is arguably significant because it suggests the informant is willing to be contacted again by the police. Fresumahly an anonymous troublemaker would not want the police to be able to trace him or her. And no explanation was given of the informant’s purpose for being at Bauer’s residence. Thus, the magistrate had only the officer’s general, conclusory description of the informant. This is not sufficient to judge the credibility of the informant. Ibarra, 61 Wn. App. at 701; Mickle, 53 Wn. App. at 43; Berlin, 46 Wn. App. at 591. Moreover, the informant admitted using marijuana in the past, living in a residence for over five years where marijuana was being grown, and was seeking money in exchange for the information — all of which raise concerns about whether the informant was truly a citizen informant. Cf. Ibarra, 61 Wn. App. at 701.
*882Finally, high electrical consumption rates alone are insufficient to establish probable cause or to corroborate information supplied by a confidential informant. State v. Huft, 106 Wn.2d 206, 211, 720 P.2d 838 (1986).
Because the reliability of the informant was not established, I believe the search warrant defective; accordingly, Bauer’s motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.
Review denied at 140 Wn.2d 1025 (2000).

Deputy Peeheos says that he “confirmed” this information. He does not say how. The deputy may simply have asked the informant for this information.