Court Opinion

ID: 9953876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 22:02:12.203131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:18.427109
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/22/24 P. v. Glaspey CA1/4
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,
      Plaintiff and
 Respondent,                                                  A167071

 v.                                                           (Del Norte County
 MICHAEL LEROY GLASPEY,                                       Super. Ct. No. CRF-21-
                                                              9513)
      Defendant and
 Appellant.

          Defendant Michael Leroy Glaspey entered a no contest plea
to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale, in
violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. His plea
followed the denial of his motion to quash the search warrant and
suppress evidence. He appeals, arguing that the magistrate
issued the warrant despite an insufficient showing of probable
cause and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is
inapplicable. We affirm.
                                        BACKGROUND
 I.     Search Warrant
          On November 3, 2021, Crescent City Police Officer Ethan
Miller sought a warrant to search defendant’s residence, person,

                                                      1
vehicles, and electronic storage devices for, inter alia,
methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Officer Miller is
recognized as a drug-sales expert in the Del Norte County
Superior Court. In support of the warrant, Officer Miller
included an affidavit, which, in summary, stated the following:
      On October 31, 2021, Officer Miller was dispatched to the
areas of 9th Street and J Street and 8th Street and J Street
based on a report of a male subject circling the blocks. Several
residents pointed out the male subject, whom Officer Miller
recognized as Jay Bardwell (Bardwell) from prior contacts.
Officer Miller had seen Bardwell around 975 9th Street “dozens
of times over the past several months.”
      Officer Miller had personally “witnessed foot traffic at all
hours of the night and day coming and going from 975 9th Street
for several years,” and had “made several drug arrests of
person[s] in the area coming and going from 975 9th Street over
the past several years.”
      Officer Miller initiated a consensual contact with Bardwell.
When Officer Miller asked Bardwell what he was doing in the
area, Bardwell said he was waiting for a friend, “Mike.” Officer
Miller asked Bardwell if he was in the area to buy drugs;
Bardwell responded by nodding several times. When asked if he
purchased drugs from Mike about once a week, Bardwell said,
“Yeah.” Bardwell stated that he typically bought “20” or a
“Tiner” (one-sixteenth of an ounce) from Mike. Bardwell told
Officer Miller that he had purchased a “$40–$50 sack” of
methamphetamine from Mike the day before on October 30, 2021.

                                  2
Bardwell said he had $6 on him and that he was hoping to
purchase one to two “bowls.” Although Bardwell did not know
the quantity of drugs Mike kept, Bardwell stated that Mike
“always” had enough drugs to sell Bardwell the amount he
wanted.
      Bardwell confirmed that Mike lived at the Del Norte Motel
(975 9th Street) in apartment No. 5 and owned a white Dodge
Charger. Bardwell further told Officer Miller that Mike’s last
name was “something like ‘Gaspey.’ ”
      Officer Miller then contacted a Concerned Citizen who lives
in the area of 975 9th Street. Officer Miller described the
Concerned Citizen as a person “in good standing in the
community, not known to be involved in any criminal activity and
[who] owns and operates a local business.”
      The Concerned Citizen had previously told Officer Miller
that they1 believed defendant was dealing methamphetamine
from 975 9th Street. The Concerned Citizen identified the
resident of 975 9th Street, apartment No. 5, as “Michael G.” The
Concerned Citizen told Officer Miller that Michael G. usually had
a rotation of two to three customers a day who showed up at all
hours of the day and night, alone, and who only stayed for short
periods of time. The Concerned Citizen referred to the people
visiting Michael G. as “customers” because they did not appear to
have an obvious relationship with anyone else in the area. The
Concerned Citizen explained that the neighborhood was

      1 As the affidavit uses the pronoun “they” to refer to the

Concerned Citizen, we do so as well.

                                 3
otherwise a community where “everyone knows everyone very
well,” and that no one else in the area had visitors repeatedly
coming and going like Michael G. at 975 9th Street, apartment
No. 5.
         The Concerned Citizen had been exposed to a “fair, decent
amount” of drug dealing within their own family and was
therefore familiar with “how it work[ed].” The Concerned Citizen
“recognized the way [defendant’s customers] acted as the same or
similar behaviors to [sic] seeing people buy drugs from their
father in the past.”
         Based on the information the Concerned Citizen provided,
Officer Miller concluded in his expert opinion that “the
Concerned Citizen was also an expert on the illegal sale of drugs
and the general behaviors associated with drug[] sales from a
residential location.”
         Officer Miller ran a Department of Motor Vehicles license
plate check of the white Dodge Challenger parked in front of
defendant’s residence and confirmed it was registered to
defendant at 975 9th Street, apartment No. 5. Officer Miller also
ran a criminal history check, which revealed that on separate
dates in 2003, defendant had suffered two felony convictions for
possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture
methamphetamine.
         Based on these record checks, the statements by Bardwell
and the Concerned Citizen, and his own personal observation of
foot traffic at all hours of the day and night in the area around

                                   4
975 9th Street, Officer Miller believed defendant to be selling
methamphetamine from his residence.
 I.        Motion to Quash and Ruling
           On April 15, 2022, defendant filed a motion to quash the
warrant and suppress the evidence seized. He argued the search
warrant was issued without probable cause and was so facially
deficient that a reasonable officer would not have had a good
faith belief in its sufficiency.
           The prosecutor opposed the motion to quash, arguing that
the warrant was issued with probable cause, or alternatively,
that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under
United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 applied.
           The court denied defendant’s motion, finding that the
search warrant was validly issued and that the officer acted in
good faith.
           On October 10, 2022, defendant entered a no contest plea to
one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale, in violation
of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Defendant timely filed
a notice of appeal.
                              DISCUSSION
II.        Probable Cause Supported Issuance of the Search
           Warrant
      A.    Standard of Review
           In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress under Penal
Code section 1538.5, “[w]e defer to the trial court’s factual
findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial
evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the

                                     5
search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,
we exercise our independent judgment.” (People v. Glaser (1995)
11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)
        Probable cause exists when, based on the totality of the
circumstances described in the affidavit, “there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found
in a particular place.” (Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238
(Gates).) “The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a
practical, commonsense decision” as to whether the totality of the
circumstances supports a finding of probable cause. (Ibid.)
        On appeal, the reviewing court assesses “whether the
magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding a fair
probability existed that a search would uncover wrongdoing.”
(People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1040.) “[B]ecause
‘[r]easonable minds frequently may differ on the question
whether a particular affidavit establishes probable cause,’ we
accord deference to the magistrate’s determination
and . . . [resolve cases] with a preference for upholding a search
under a warrant.” (People v. French (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th
1307, 1315 (French.)
   B.    The Affidavit Established the Reliability and Bases
         of the Informants’ Knowledge.
        “While an informant’s veracity, reliability, and basis of
knowledge are all highly relevant in determining” whether
sufficient probable cause exists, “these elements should not be
understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to
be rigidly exacted in every case, but understood simply as closely

                                   6
intertwined issues” to be assessed under the totality of the
circumstances. (People v. Terrones (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 139,
146 (Terrones).) That is, the absence of one element can be
compensated for by a strong showing on another element. (Gates,
supra, 462 U.S. at p. 233.)
      Defendant argues that neither Bardwell nor the Concerned
Citizen provided information that was sufficiently “detailed or
corroborated” to establish their reliability. Based on our review
of Officer Miller’s affidavit and as explained post, we disagree.
      Concerned Citizen
      Citizen informants are “private citizens who are witnesses
to or victims of a criminal act.” (People v. Kershaw (1983)
147 Cal.App.3d 750, 755, superseded by statute on another
ground as stated in People v. Burch (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 172,
176–177.) The information citizen informants provide to law
enforcement is presumed to be reliable. (Ibid.)
      The Concerned Citizen is a “citizen informant” and — as
defendant concedes — is presumed to be a reliable witness. (See
People v. Lombera (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 29, 32 (Lombera) [“it is
not necessary that the informant’s name be disclosed in the
affidavit for the status of citizen informant and its attendant
presumption of reliability to attach”].) In his affidavit, Officer
Miller stated that the Concerned Citizen was a person of good
standing in the community, not known to be involved in any
criminal activity, who owned and ran a local business. Officer
Miller had interacted with the Concerned Citizen on an earlier
occasion, and the Concerned Citizen had previously told Officer

                                  7
Miller that they believed defendant was “dealing
methamphetamine from 975 9th Street.” Nothing suggests that
the Concerned Citizen had any motivation to lie or that Officer
Miller should have questioned the Concerned Citizen’s reliability.
      Further, the affidavit explained in detail how the
Concerned Citizen obtained their knowledge of defendant’s
criminal activity. First, the Concerned Citizen described the
observed pattern of foot traffic to defendant’s home: a “changing
rotation of multiple people,” usually two to three customers a
day, several times a week. The Concerned Citizen indicated that
the “shady” customers showed up at all hours of the day and
night, alone, and only stayed for short periods of time. The
Concerned Citizen further explained the basis of their suspicion
by stating that the people who visited defendant did not have any
obvious connections to anyone else in the neighborhood, which
was otherwise a community where “everyone knows everyone
very well,” and by noting that no one else in the area had visitors
repeatedly coming and going like defendant at 975 9th Street,
apartment No. 5.
      Second, the Concerned Citizen told Officer Miller they had
observed a “fair, decent amount” of drug dealing within their own
family, so they were familiar with “how it work[ed].” The
Concerned Citizen continued by stating that they recognized the
way defendant’s customers acted as being the same as or similar
to behavior they had seen from people buying drugs from their
father in the past. Based on the information the Concerned
Citizen provided, Officer Miller concluded in his expert opinion

                                 8
that the Concerned Citizen was “also an expert on the illegal sale
of drugs and the general behaviors associated with drug[] sales
from a residential location.” (Cf. People v. Nicholls (2008)
159 Cal.App.4th 703, 711 [“[L]aw enforcement officers may draw
upon their expertise to interpret the facts in a search warrant
application, and such expertise may be considered by the
magistrate as a factor supporting probable cause”].) Nothing in
the affidavit undermines the Concerned Citizen’s presumption of
reliability. (See Lombera, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 32.)
      Citing primarily to French, defendant argues that the
information provided by the Concerned Citizen failed to establish
reliability. French is distinguishable.
      In French, the affidavit named one of the informants as
“[c]onfidential reliable informant one” without providing any
facts in support of the informant’s reliability. (French, supra,
201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1317.) Additionally, confidential reliable
informant two (CRI-2) told officers that he/she knew the
defendant was selling drugs from the home the defendant shared
with another person because when CRI-2 was at the defendant’s
residence, CRI-2 saw people come inside, get taken into another
room, and leave a short time later. (Id. at p. 1313.) CRI-2
“believed the people who came to [the] house were buying drugs.”
(Ibid.) Based on this information, the People contended that
CRI-2 witnessed “ ‘heavy foot traffic.’ ” (Id. at p. 1319.) The
appellate court concluded, however, that the affidavit’s lack of
information regarding “how many people CRI-2 observed or
whether CRI-2 witnessed people being taken to another room

                                  9
more than once” could not support an assertion that there was
“ ‘heavy foot traffic.’ ” (Ibid.)
      By contrast, Officer Miller included in the affidavit facts
supporting the Concerned Citizen’s reliability — namely, that the
Concerned Citizen was a person “in good standing in the
community, not known to be involved in any criminal activity and
[who] own[ed] and operate[d] a local business.” Further, unlike
in French, the Concerned Citizen specified that they saw two to
three people visit defendant’s home per day, several times a
week, for short periods of time. This pattern was consistent with
the drug-dealing behavior the Concerned Citizen witnessed in
their own household because of their drug-dealing father.
Finally, unlike the Concerned Citizen here, the confidential
reliable informants in French were not private citizens whose
information comes with a presumption of reliability. (See
Lombera, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 32.) French is therefore
distinguishable, and the information the Concerned Citizen
provided to Officer Miller was reliable.
      Bardwell
      Bardwell’s basis for his knowledge of defendant’s criminal
activity is significant, as Bardwell had personally purchased
methamphetamine from defendant in the very recent past.
      In Terrones, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at page 149, the court
noted that probable cause was supported by information from two
admitted cocaine purchasers who told police they had purchased
cocaine from the defendant. The statements were made against
the purchasers’ penal interests and were thus “an indication of

                                    10
their veracity.” (Ibid.; see also Bailey v. Superior Court (1992)
11 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 [distinguishing Terrones and holding
that because the informants never “actually purchased drugs
from [defendant],” they could not conclude that she was dealing
drugs].)
        As in Terrones, Bardwell’s statements to Officer Miller
were made against his penal interest. Bardwell told Officer
Miller that he purchased a “20” or “Tiner” from defendant about
once a week. Just one night before Officer Miller spoke to him,
on October 30, 2021, Bardwell purchased a “$40–$50 sack” of
methamphetamine from defendant. Bardwell further told Officer
Miller he was in the area that night to buy more drugs from
defendant. Though Bardwell did not have any drugs on him
while speaking to Officer Miller, Bardwell said he had $6 on him
that he was hoping to spend on “1–2 ‘bowls.’ ”
        Finally, the information Officer Miller received from
Bardwell and the Concerned Citizen was mutually supportive.
(United States v. Laws, (D.C. Cir. 1986) 808 F.2d 92, 103 [“the
mutually-supporting nature of the two tips is an important
ingredient in the probable-cause mix. . . . The fact that two
apparently unassociated persons make the same assertion
increases the probability that it is true.”]; Terrones, supra,
212 Cal.App.3d at p. 147.)
   C.    Police Corroboration
        Defendant also argues that the information Bardwell and
the Concerned Citizen provided was insufficient to support
probable cause until corroborated by Officer Miller and that

                                  11
Officer Miller’s corroboration was insufficient because it consisted
only of confirmation of “pedestrian facts.” Adequate
corroboration “must pertain to the alleged criminal activity,” and
not to the suspect generally. (People v. Gotfried (2003)
107 Cal.App.4th 254, 263–264.) Law enforcement needs to
corroborate more than “easily obtained facts”; however,
corroboration is sufficient if it uncovers probative indications of
criminal activity consistent with the information provided by
informants. (Bailey v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1112; Gotfried, at p. 264.)
      Prior convictions favor “a finding of probable cause in a way
that ‘bald and unilluminating assertions’ of a suspect’s reputation
do not.” (United States v. Laws, supra, 808 F.2d at p. 103; see
also People v. Kershaw, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 760.) For
example, in People v. Camarella (1991) 54 Cal.3d 592, 598, the
affidavit referenced the defendant’s four-year-old arrest for
possession of the same narcotic at issue in the warrant
application. Although the prior arrest was several years old, the
California Supreme Court nonetheless concluded that the officer
substantially corroborated the information received from the
informants. (Id. at p. 606.)
      Here, Officer Miller conducted independent investigations
before and after receiving information from Bardwell and the
Concerned Citizen. In the affidavit, Officer Miller explained that
he had personally “witnessed foot traffic at all hours of the night
and day coming and going from 975 9th Street for several years,”
and that he had “made several drug arrests of person[s] in the

                                 12
area coming and going from 975 9th Street over the past several
years.” Additionally, Officer Miller ran a license plate check on
the white Dodge Challenger parked in front of defendant’s
residence and confirmed that it was registered to defendant at
975 9th Street, apartment No. 5. Most importantly, Officer
Miller included defendant’s criminal history in the affidavit,
noting that defendant was twice found guilty of felony possession
of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture
methamphetamine in January and February of 2003.
      These facts distinguish this case from Higgason v. Superior
Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 929, upon which defendant relies.
In Higgason, the court identified two major deficiencies in the
affidavit: (1) All the incriminating evidence originated from
anonymous sources; and (2) police investigation revealed only
“ ‘easily obtained facts,’ ” like the defendant’s physical
description, residence, and vehicle, none of which pertained to the
alleged criminal activity. (Id. at pp. 938–940.) Here, however,
Officer Miller personally knew and spoke with both Bardwell and
the Concerned Citizen, and the affidavit offered considerably
more corroboration, including defendant’s prior convictions for
the same type of drug-dealing activity. Higgason is therefore
distinguishable, and Officer Miller’s corroboration was sufficient.
      In sum, the totality of the circumstances outlined in the
affidavit support the magistrate’s finding that there was probable
cause supporting the warrant.

                                  13
III.   Good Faith Exception
        Having concluded that there was a substantial basis for the
 issuing magistrate’s probable cause determination, we need not
 address the issue of whether Officer Miller could rely in good
 faith on the search warrant pursuant to United States v. Leon.
        We conclude that the trial court properly denied the
 defense motion to quash the warrant and suppress evidence.
                               DISPOSITION
        Affirmed.

                                             BROWN, P. J.

 WE CONCUR:

 STREETER, J.
 GOLDMAN, J.

 People v. Glaspey (A167071)

                                   14