Court Opinion

ID: 9393131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 15:11:07.12344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.234127
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

                                        2023 WY 42

                                                                APRIL TERM, A.D. 2023

                                                                          May 9, 2023

 MICHAEL JOSEPH HERDT,

 Appellant
 (Defendant),

 v.                                                         S-22-0233

 THE STATE OF WYOMING,

 Appellee
 (Plaintiff).

                    Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County
                      The Honorable Matthew F.G. Castano, Judge

Representing Appellant:
      Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel;
      Robin S. Cooper, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Cooper.

Representing Appellee:
      Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General;
      Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Jones.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.
Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne,
Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before
final publication in the permanent volume.
BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] Michael Joseph Herdt pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine after
the district court denied his multiple motions to suppress, which challenged the validity of
the warrant (and supporting affidavit) police obtained to search his home. Mr. Herdt raises
similar challenges on appeal. We affirm.

                                         ISSUES

[¶2]   Mr. Herdt raises two issues, which we rephrase as:

              1. Whether the district court clearly erred when it found an
                 officer did not recklessly omit information from the search-
                 warrant affidavit.

              2. Whether the search warrant contained sufficient
                 information to allow the executing officer to identify the
                 place to be searched with reasonable effort.

                                         FACTS

[¶3] In October 2020, Jamie Boardman called the Gillette Police Department, claiming
Mr. Herdt was using methamphetamine and threatening her. Ms. Boardman informed the
dispatcher that Mr. Herdt’s address was 61 Constitution Drive Apartment 4. Before his
arrival at the scene, dispatch relayed to Officer Andy Lucas that Ms. Boardman’s “speech
was extremely slurred and she was mumbling.”

[¶4] Officer Lucas arrived at Mr. Herdt’s apartment complex with another officer and
met Mr. Herdt outside. Mr. Herdt led the officers to the apartment so they could speak
with Ms. Boardman. When the officers spoke with her, Officer Lucas observed she had
“very slurred speech and she was extremely lethargic with droopy eyes.” The officers
initially questioned her while Mr. Herdt was present, and she denied calling law
enforcement. Officer Lucas then asked her to speak with him outside the residence.

[¶5] Once Ms. Boardman was outside, she admitted to calling law enforcement because
she was afraid Mr. Herdt was going to kill and eat her. She also stated Mr. Herdt used
methamphetamine and she had seen a quarter ounce of it in his room but did not know
where it was stored.

[¶6] The officers informed Mr. Herdt about the drug use and possession allegations. Mr.
Herdt denied the allegations but claimed he had seen Ms. Boardman smoke meth. Mr.
Herdt consented to the officers entering the apartment to continue talking with Ms.
Boardman who had gone into her room.

                                             1
[¶7] Officer Lucas again talked with Ms. Boardman and received her consent to search
her room. During the search, Officer Lucas found two hypodermic needles on the floor
and discovered one needle was still “wet.” He asked Ms. Boardman if she was diabetic.
Ms. Boardman stated she was not diabetic and denied the needles belonged to her. She
claimed Mr. Herdt “planted” them. After he finished searching Ms. Boardman’s room,
Officer Lucas asked Mr. Herdt for consent to search the rest of the home. Mr. Herdt
declined.

[¶8] While other officers secured the residence, Officer Lucas submitted an affidavit to
the circuit court for a warrant to search “61 Constitution Drive Apt. 4.” The court issued
the search warrant. The officers immediately searched Mr. Herdt’s home and found several
baggies of methamphetamine, one baggie of marijuana, and other items, which led to Mr.
Herdt being charged with felony possession of methamphetamine, possession with the
intent to deliver, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

[¶9] In May 2021, Mr. Herdt’s first counsel filed a motion to suppress challenging, in
relevant part, the facial validity of the search warrant based on one section incorrectly
stating the address to be searched as “604 Vivian Apartment A, located in Gillette,
Wyoming.” Mr. Herdt then obtained new counsel who filed a legal memorandum in
August 2021 asserting several new arguments in support of the motion to suppress. Mr.
Herdt changed counsel again in September 2021. In January 2022, Mr. Herdt’s third
counsel filed a new motion to suppress and supplement, asserting in part that Officer Lucas’
affidavit supporting the search warrant contained materially false statements and omissions
that rendered the affidavit insufficient to establish probable cause under Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155–56, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978). The district
court held a combined Franks and suppression hearing the next month at which Officer
Lucas testified about his statements in the search-warrant affidavit. The court soon after
issued a written order denying the motions to suppress.

[¶10] Mr. Herdt entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of
methamphetamine in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii) (LexisNexis). The
district court sentenced Mr. Herdt to 5 to 7 years of incarceration, with 16 days as credit
for time served. Mr. Herdt timely appealed.

                                      DISCUSSION

   I.     The district court did not clearly err in finding Officer Lucas had not recklessly
          omitted information from the affidavit.

[¶11] The Fourth Amendment states:

              The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
              papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

                                             2
               seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
               upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
               particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
               persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Const. amend. IV. 1

[¶12] Mr. Herdt contends Officer Lucas knowingly, or with reckless disregard, omitted
facts from the search-warrant affidavit to mislead the court and, if the omitted facts had
been included, the affidavit considered in its totality would not show probable cause.

[¶13] To issue a valid search warrant, all the circumstances set forth in the supporting
affidavit must provide the judicial officer a “substantial basis” to make an independent
judgment that probable cause exists. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S. Ct. 2317,
76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983); Mathewson, ¶ 20, 438 P.3d at 200 (citation omitted). When this
Court reviews the affidavit, we “consider the affidavit in its totality, interpreting it in a
realistic and common sense manner to determine if it presents probable cause supporting
the issuance of the warrant.” Kreusel v. State, 2023 WY 9, ¶ 16, 523 P.3d 312, 317 (Wyo.
2023) (citations omitted). “[W]e begin with the presumption the warrant and supporting
affidavit are valid” and “resolve doubtful or marginal cases by sustaining the search.” Id.
(citations omitted).

[¶14] Under Franks v. Delaware:

               [W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary
               showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or
               with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the
               affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false
               statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the
               Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the
               defendant’s request. In the event that at that hearing the
               allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the
               defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the
               affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s
               remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause,
               the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search
               excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking
               on the face of the affidavit.

1
  We analyze Mr. Herdt’s claims solely under the Fourth Amendment because he made no attempt to raise
them under Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. See Mathewson v. State, 2019 WY 36, ¶ 18, 438
P.3d 189, 200 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Sheesley v. State, 2019 WY 32, ¶¶ 15–16, 437 P.3d 830, 837 (Wyo.
2019)).

                                                 3
Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56; see also Lefferdink v. State, 2011 WY 75, ¶ 9, 250 P.3d 173,
176 (Wyo. 2011) (quoting Davis v. State, 859 P.2d 89, 92–93 (Wyo. 1993)). “Negligence
or innocent mistake are insufficient grounds to find the misstatement should be set aside.”
Davis, 859 P.2d at 94 (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171).

[¶15] The Franks rationale also applies to information police “deliberately or recklessly
omitted from a search-warrant affidavit.” United States v. Jacobs, 986 F.2d 1231, 1234
(8th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 1986)). In
these circumstances, the defendant must show “(1) that the police omitted facts with the
intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit
misleading, . . . and (2) that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would
not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” Id. (quoting Reivich, 793
F.2d at 961); see also Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque, 964 F.3d 900, 905 (10th Cir. 2020)
(citation omitted); United States v. Garcia-Zambrano, 530 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir.
2008) (citations omitted).

[¶16] When a district court denies a motion to suppress based on a combined Franks and
suppression hearing, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error on
whether information was omitted intentionally to make, or with reckless disregard to
whether it made, the affidavit misleading. See Garcia-Zambrano, 530 F.3d at 1254
(citations omitted); Lefferdink, ¶ 8, 250 P.3d at 175–76 (citation omitted). “We view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision because the court
conducted the hearing and had the opportunity to ‘assess the witnesses’ credibility, weigh
the evidence and make the necessary inferences, deductions and conclusions.’” E.g.,
Elmore v. State, 2021 WY 41, ¶ 8, 482 P.3d 358, 361 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Pryce v. State,
2020 WY 151, ¶ 16, 477 P.3d 90, 94–95 (Wyo. 2020)).

[¶17] Mr. Herdt asserts here, as he did in the district court, that Officer Lucas knowingly,
or with reckless disregard, omitted the following information from the search-warrant
affidavit:

   • Ms. Boardman’s criminal history, mental health issues, and her obvious impairment;
   • Ms. Boardman is bipolar, takes several medications, and made bizarre statements to
     the officers at the apartment;
   • Ms. Boardman made inconsistent statements to the officers which a magistrate
     would have wanted to know about; and
   • Officer Lucas failed to test the liquid found in the two hypodermic needles for drugs
     yet still described them in the affidavit as “drug paraphernalia found on the floor in
     [Ms. Boardman’s] room . . .”

Mr. Herdt does not argue on appeal how these omissions undermine probable cause, but
he generally asserts the affidavit would be “insufficient” if these omissions had been
included.

                                             4
[¶18] In its order denying Mr. Herdt’s motions to suppress, the district court found Officer
Lucas did not know about Ms. Boardman’s criminal or mental health history, and thus did
not recklessly omit that information. However, the court did find Officer Lucas was aware
Ms. Boardman was bipolar, taking several medications, and had made several bizarre
statements. The court acknowledged the officer should have included this information in
the affidavit but ultimately found the omissions were not reckless. The court further found
Ms. Boardman’s bizarre statements could be consistent with intoxication and it was
reasonable to infer Ms. Boardman was under the influence of drugs. Thus, even if these
details were included in the affidavit, the court issuing the warrant could still find probable
cause. The court also found the inconsistencies Mr. Herdt identified in Ms. Boardman’s
statements to be immaterial. Lastly, the district court found Officer Lucas’ omission
regarding his failure to test the hypodermic needles was not reckless because “the issuing
court could have reasonably inferred that syringes laying on the floor contain drugs[.]”

[¶19] Mr. Herdt does not purport to show clear error in any of the district court’s factual
findings related to Ms. Boardman. Mr. Herdt only challenges the district court’s alleged
failure to strike the phrase “drug paraphernalia” from the affidavit after Officer Lucas
testified he never tested the hypodermic needles found in Ms. Boardman’s room for drugs.
Mr. Herdt primarily contends Officer Lucas could not truthfully inform the issuing court
the hypodermic needles were “drug paraphernalia” unless he tested them, and thus it was
reckless to omit this information from the affidavit.

[¶20] Mr. Herdt argues that omitting the failure to test the hypodermic needles is reckless
because it is “highly relevant,” similar to the drug dog’s failure to alert in United States v.
Jacobs, 986 F.2d 1231, 1234 (8th Cir. 1993). Mr. Herdt’s analogy is unpersuasive. In
Jacobs, officers suspected a package sent in the mail contained drugs. Id. at 1232–33. The
officers intercepted the package and brought in a drug dog to conduct a canine sniff. Id. at
1233. The drug dog showed an “interest” in the package but did not officially alert to the
presence of drugs. Id. One of the officers subsequently filed an affidavit as part of a
warrant application to search the package. Id. In the affidavit, the officer stated the drug
dog had an “interest” in the package but omitted the dog’s failure to alert. Id. at 1233,
1234. The officer was issued a search warrant. Id. at 1233. On appeal, the court
acknowledged whether the drug dog alerted to the suspected package was critical to the
issuing court’s probable cause determination and was thus “highly relevant in nature[.]”
See id. at 1234–35 (“Without an alert, the police clearly lacked the probable cause
necessary to open the package.”). The officer’s omission was held to be reckless because
the affidavit misled the court into believing probable cause existed. Id.

[¶21] In this matter, whether Officer Lucas tested the hypodermic needles has no bearing
on the issuing court’s probable cause determination. When a judicial officer is presented
with an affidavit supporting a search-warrant application, the issuing court need only make
a “practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the
affidavit before him . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime

                                              5
will be found in a particular place.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238. The search-warrant affidavit
stated both Mr. Herdt and Ms. Boardman accused each other of drug use, and Ms.
Boardman told officers she observed methamphetamine in Mr. Herdt’s room. The affidavit
indicated Ms. Boardman had “very slurred speech and she was extremely lethargic with
droopy eyes” which allowed the issuing court to infer Ms. Boardman was intoxicated. In
this context, the affidavit then stated Officer Lucas found two hypodermic needles in Ms.
Boardman’s room and noted through his training and experience he knew these types of
needles were used for injecting methamphetamine. Under these circumstances, the issuing
court had a substantial basis to make the common-sense determination that a fair
probability existed drugs could be found in Mr. Herdt’s home—even if Officer Lucas had
indicated in the affidavit he never tested the hypodermic needles. Therefore, the district
court did not clearly err in finding Officer Lucas’ omission was not a knowing or reckless
act to make the search-warrant affidavit misleading. We conclude the court properly
denied Mr. Herdt’s motions to suppress under Franks. See Garcia-Zambrano, 530 F.3d at
1254; Lefferdink, ¶ 8, 250 P.3d at 175–76.

    II.     The search warrant contained sufficient information to allow Officer Lucas
            to identify the place to be searched with reasonable effort.

[¶22] Mr. Herdt next asserts the search warrant was invalid because it failed to
particularize the correct place to be searched when it stated an incorrect address on its face. 2

[¶23] The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to “particularly describ[e] the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Groh v.
Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 557, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (2004). This Court has
not directly addressed the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement in analyzing
whether a warrant sufficiently described the place to be searched. Our cases have
addressed only whether a warrant sufficiently described the things to be seized. E.g.,
Taylor v. State, 7 P.3d 15, 21–23 (Wyo. 2000) (considering whether a warrant particularly
describing the thing to be seized as an “Uzi-type weapon” limited officers’ ability to
continue searching for other items after the weapon had been found); Hall v. State, 911
P.2d 1364, 1369–70 (Wyo. 1996) (considering whether a warrant sufficiently described an
engine as the thing to be seized).

[¶24] Whether considering the place or things to be searched, the purpose of the
particularity requirement is to “ensure[] searches do not exceed the scope of the probable
cause justifying them.” United States v. Garcia, 707 F.3d 1190, 1197 (10th Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted); see also Hall, 911 P.2d at 1369. And, we review the ultimate question

2
 The district court stated that at the suppression hearing Mr. Herdt only challenged the affidavit in support
of the search warrant and thus likely waived the incorrect address argument. Mr. Herdt contends, and the
State concedes, the incorrect address argument was properly preserved.

                                                     6
of whether the search was legally justified de novo. Elmore, ¶ 8, 482 P.3d at 361 (citations
omitted); see also Garcia, 707 F.3d at 1194.

[¶25] In determining the adequacy of a warrant’s description of the location to be
searched, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has established the following two-prong test:
(1) whether the description is sufficient to enable the executing officer to locate and identify
the premises with reasonable effort, and (2) whether there is any reasonable probability
that another premise might be mistakenly searched. E.g., Garcia, 707 F.3d at 1197
(quoting United States v. Lora-Solano, 330 F.3d 1288, 1293 (10th Cir. 2003); see also
United States v. Abdalla, 972 F.3d 838, 845 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); United States
v. Deloera-Escalera, 636 F. App’x 977, 980 (10th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).

[¶26] Under this test, “[p]ractical accuracy, not technical precision, determines whether a
search warrant adequately describes the premises to be searched.” Garcia, 707 F.3d at
1197 (quoting United States v. Dorrough, 927 F.2d 498, 500) (10th Cir. 1991)); Deloera-
Escalera, 636 F. App’x at 980 (citation omitted). Therefore, “[a] technically wrong address
does not invalidate a warrant if it otherwise describes the premises with sufficient
particularity so that the police can ascertain and identify the place to be searched.” Lora-
Solano, 330 F.3d at 1293; see also Abdalla, 972 F.3d at 846 (“Even though a warrant
containing the wrong address can sometimes risk a mistaken search, such an ‘error does
not invalidate a search warrant if the warrant includes other specific descriptors that remove
the probability that the wrong location could be searched[.]’” (citation omitted)).

[¶27] The body of the search warrant Officer Lucas executed contained a single reference
to an incorrect address: “604 Vivian Apartment A, located in Gillette, Wyoming.” It is
undisputed this address does not describe the location of Mr. Herdt’s apartment. The
warrant’s caption however clearly states the correct address at “61 Constitution Drive Apt.
4.” Officer Lucas also knew the correct address because he had arrived at the location
before applying for the search warrant. See United States v. Brakeman, 475 F.3d 1206,
1211–12 (10th Cir. 2007) (concluding that the knowledge of executing officers can
supplement the information in the warrant to cure any ambiguity).

[¶28] Additionally, when there is a discrepancy in a warrant, “the executing officer may
seek clarification in an attached affidavit.” Deloera-Escalera, 636 F. App’x at 980
(citation omitted); see also Groh, 540 U.S. at 557–58 (“[A] court may construe a warrant
with reference to a supporting application or affidavit if the warrant uses appropriate words
of incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant.”). The warrant
in this matter incorporated the supporting affidavit, which contained the correct address to
be searched in four different locations. First, the affidavit articulated the address in the
caption as “61 Constitution Drive Apt. 4,” then below the caption it stated the address as
“61 Constitution drive apartment 4,” and twice in Officer Lucas’ factual narrative it stated
the address as “61 Constitution apartment 4.” The affidavit further noted “[t]he residence
is currently being secured by Officer Hoang and Officer Cyr.”

                                               7
[¶29] The correct address stated within the warrant’s caption and clarified in the affidavit,
the executing officer’s knowledge of the location to be searched, and the affidavit’s
acknowledgment of the other officers’ presence at that location was more than sufficient
to enable Officer Lucas to locate and identify Mr. Herdt’s apartment with reasonable effort.
The above circumstances virtually eliminated the possibility the incorrect address would
be searched. See Garcia, 707 F.3d at 1197. The search warrant was sufficiently particular
to remain valid under the Fourth Amendment.

[¶30] Affirmed.

                                             8