Court Opinion

ID: 9792706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:34:55.132734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:44.748563
License: Public Domain

*144DURHAM, J.,
dissenting.
Because Officer Swanson’s affidavit does not establish his informant’s reliability, I would affirm the trial court. The majority fails to follow the Supreme Court’s recent admonition about the need for particularized facts in search warrant affidavits. State v. Carter/Grant, 316 Or 6, 10, 848 P2d 599 (1993). In Carter/Grant, the affidavit recited that the affiant was trained in identifying growing marijuana and that he saw growing plants in the defendant’s window, the color and stem of which were “consistent with” marijuana. The court held that the affidavit was insufficient, because the officer did not say that the plants were marijuana or that he believed them to be marijuana.
The affidavit in the present case recites that Swanson was told by the Multnomah County detective
“that approximately two years ago this [informant] provided information to the narcotics unit that was the foundation for at least two search warrants. It should be noted that this information was also used to successfully prosecute and convict two major cocaine traffickers.”
We should examine the affidavit in a common sense, nontechnical manner. State v. Tacker, 241 Or 597, 601, 407 P2d 851 (1965). Even when it is viewed in that light, the affidavit contains fatal flaws. It does not state facts that establish that the informant was credible, or that his past information was reliable. The affidavit does not describe the information that was the “foundation” for two search warrants, or state that the police verified it or believed that it was true. The affidavit does not state how the information was “used” to obtain two convictions, or that anyone found or believed that the information was credible. Vague suggestions that Multnomah County authorities had worked successfully with the informant are no substitute for a statement of facts establishing that he or his information was reliable.
State v. Nuttall, 97 Or App 285, 776 P2d 26, rev den 308 Or 593 (1989), does not support the majority’s result. In that case, the affidavit recites that police had established the reliability of the informant and his information through an independent investigation:
“The officer said that the Cl was known to him to be reliable, because the Cl had provided him ‘with information in *145regards to narcotics trafficking in the Portland tri-county area, which [had] proven reliable and accurate in every respect, through independent investigation.’ The statement does not state explicitly when or on how many occasions or with what results the Cl supplied information, but it supplies the magistrate with ‘sufficient raw data to make an independent judgment of [the CPs] trustworthiness.’ State v. Diaz, 29 Or App 523, 527, 564 P2d 1066 (1977). (Emphasis supplied.) * * * Here, the magistrate could reasonably infer from the terms ‘narcotics trafficking’ and ‘in every respect’ that the Cl had supplied information regarding more than one incident or aspect of the narcotics traffic and that an independent investigation had proven the information reliable and accurate.” 97 Or App at 290. (Emphasis supplied.)
Nuttall is distinguishable because Swanson’s affidavit does not state, directly or indirectly, that the informant’s information in Multnomah County was reliable, or that authorities verified it through an investigation or otherwise. Carter/Grant says that “[o]missions are of significance when evaluating an affidavit for a warrant.” 316 Or at 13. Here, the lack of sworn facts establishing the informant’s reliability is a glaring omission.
The statement that “the [informant], in controlled conditions, was very reliable” does not supply the missing facts showing that the informant is credible or that the information supplied is reliable. See State v. Alvarez, 308 Or 143, 147, 776 P2d 1283 (1989). The informant was reliable two years ago in controlled conditions. That does not suggest that the informant is credible in current, uncontrolled conditions. As the trial court noted, Swanson did not send him back to purchase cocaine under controlled conditions. Despite the majority’s contrary suggestion, we are not free to disregard the detective’s own qualification on his statement about the informant’s reliability. Under Carter/Grant, this affidavit fails to establish the informant’s reliability.
The fact that the informant provided information against his penal interest does “not go far in establishing the informant as a generally credible source.” State v. Carlile, 290 Or 161, 167, 619 P2d 1280 (1980).
“Police informers, who often are paid or protected informers drawn from the criminal milieu, are ‘almost universally *146viewed with a jaundiced eye,’ especially when they hide behind the cloak of anonymity.” 290 Or at 167.
In Carlile, the Supreme Court concluded that the fact an informant
‘ ‘was named and that she had made an admission against her penal interest is an insufficient guarantee of reliability where no partial police corroboration of the information was made.” 290 Or at 168.
The information in Carlile arguably was corroborated, because the informant had a list of addresses in her home on which the defendants’ address appeared. However, the court found this insufficient:
“[T]he list had nothing to do with drug transactions. It was a City of Eugene directory of persons available to do home repairs on a reduced fee basis. * * * The fact that [the informant] possessed such a list hardly corroborates the allegation that cocaine would be found at the [defendants’] residence.” 290 Or at 168.
Here, the informant was not named, and the only arguably corroborated fact was that the homeowner drove a brown BMW. To paraphrase Carlile, that had nothing to do with drug transactions and does not corroborate the allegation that cocaine would be found at the residence.
I would affirm the trial court.