Court Opinion

ID: 9847968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:10:43.622949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:51.982251
License: Public Domain

Hastings, J.,
dissenting.
The affidavit which the majority holds to be insufficient to support a wiretap order contains two important groups of facts.
First, it is apparent that as a result of subpoenas served on the telephone company, a record of long-distance calls charged to the defendant’s number from September 1, 1980, to August 15, 1981, revealed that a number of highly suspicious calls were placed.
Six calls were made to a party in California who had a criminal record consisting of carrying a concealed weapon and trespassing; 5 calls to an O’Neill number, whose subscriber purchased $600 worth of cocaine from a go-between of the defendant, and who also was an associate of a pimp and drug dealer in South Dakota; 5 calls to a Brunswick, Nebraska, number, whose subscriber was involved in dealing in 80-pound marijuana sales, hashish, and cocaine amounting to $100,000 in a 2^-month period; 1 call to a Creighton, Nebraska, number to a subscriber who had been engaged in illicit drug operations; 42 calls to an Osmond, Nebraska, number, the subscriber of which, according to a reliable informant, was involved in the distribution of narcotics with the defendant; 12 calls to 5 South Dakota numbers, the subscribers of which, according to a reliable informant, were involved in the distribution of narcotics with the defendant, or were involved in narcotics in South Dakota, or owned a particular airplane which was observed by an ordinary citizen landing on a nearby airstrip and regularly met with the defendant; and 4 calls to a Yankton, South Dakota, number listed to a person who was a pilot of the airplane mentioned above, which was observed *46on a particular day landing on an airstrip on which the defendant’s pickup truck was parked. On one occasion this truck was backed up to the aircraft and a concerned citizen noticed articles being exchanged between the truck and the pickup, and as the citizen approached, the airplane took off before the second engine had been fully powered.
Additionally, 17 calls were made to a Baldwin Park, California, number to a subscriber who was an associate of the defendant and was suspected of being involved in drug dealings with the defendant; 1 call to a Plainview, Nebraska, number to a subscriber who the same informer previously mentioned said sold drugs obtained from the defendant; 13 various calls to 4 numbers in Texas, California, and Nebraska to subscribers, all of whom had records involving drugs and drug distribution.
The facts recited in the affidavit mentioned in the majority opinion are that the defendant’s residence is located in a rural area near Orchard, Nebraska; that such residence has no public access roads that the affiant can get close to; that there is very little traffic, and what there is is of a local nature known to the defendant and his friends. It is true that the affiant then concludes that, because of those facts, ground surveillance of the defendant’s residence would not be possible.
Even throwing out the affiant’s conclusion, which we must, it seems apparent that there are facts from which a magistrate could reach the conclusion that the affiant did. Even though a local sheriff testified to the contrary, it was a factual issue which had evidence to support either conclusion. The applicable standard of review is that the findings of fact made by the district court will not be set aside on appeal to this court unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Billups, 209 Neb. 737, 311 N.W.2d 512 (1981).
Finally, it is extremely doubtful that surveillance would disclose any pertinent facts other than those *47known to law enforcement agencies and which were mentioned in the majority opinion.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in overruling the motion to suppress.
I am authorized to state that Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.