Court Opinion

ID: 9663903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:54:43.95251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:58.855079
License: Public Domain

Shanahan, J.,
concurring.
Although I concur that Groves’ convictions must be affirmed, the majority has failed to address Groves’ contention that probable cause was lacking for the search warrant, when executed, because the information on which the warrant was based had become “stale” and thereby rendered the search unreasonable. That contention deserves the court’s attention.
Probable cause to search must exist for issuance of a search warrant and at the time the search warrant is executed. See United States v. Lemmons, 527 F.2d 662 (6th Cir. 1975,). As the court pointed out in United States v. Bedford, 519 F.2d 650, 655 (3d Cir. 1975):
The element of time can admittedly affect the validity of a search warrant. Since it is upon allegation of presently existing facts that a warrant is issued, it is essential that it be executed promptly, “in order to lessen the possibility that the facts upon which probable cause was initially based do not become dissipated.” If the police were allowed to execute the warrant at leisure, the safeguard of judicial control over the search which the fourth amendment is intended to accomplish would be eviscerated. Thus, a search pursuant to a “stale” warrant is invalid.
In Bedford, the court further observed:
Timeliness of execution should not be determined by means of a mechanical test with regard to the number of days from issuance, nor whether any cause for delay was per se reasonable or unreasonable. Rather it should be functionally measured in terms of whether probable cause still existed at the time the warrant was executed.

Id.

Although neither the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution nor article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution prescribes a specific period for execution of a search warrant, *678both Constitutions prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Therefore, reasonableness, based on probable cause and required for a search, does place some constitutional limitation on the time for execution of a search warrant. A delay in executing a search warrant is constitutionally permissible only when the probable cause recited in the affidavit continues until the time of execution. United States v. Nepstead, 424 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1970). See, also, United States v. Lemmons, supra; State v. Edwards, 98 Wis. 2d 367, 297 N.W.2d 12 (1980); State v. Yaritz, 287 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1979).
Accordingly, a constitutionally impermissible delay in executing a search warrant may occur notwithstanding execution of the warrant within the time prescribed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-815 (Reissue 1989): “The warrant must be executed and returned within ten days after its date [issuance].” The majority mistakenly applies § 29-815 as a per se rule and states that “[s]ince the warrant was executed within the statutory limits,” Groves’ contention that probable cause for the warrant had disappeared “is without merit.”
Section 29-815 sets forth a ministerial procedure for return of an executed search warrant. See, Commonwealth v. Cromer, 365 Mass. 519, 313 N.E.2d 557 (1974); United States v. Kennedy, 457 F.2d 63 (10th Cir. 1972); People v. Schmidt, 172 Colo. 285, 473 P.2d 698 (1970); State v. Hunt, 454 S.W.2d 555 (Mo. 1970); United States v. Haskins, 345 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1965). However, § 29-815 also specifies the time within which an officer must execute a search warrant, namely, within 10 days after issuance of the search warrant. The 10-day limit for execution of a search warrant is not mandated by the U.S. Constitution or Nebraska Constitution, but is a legislatively expressed time limit for execution of a search warrant and does not, and constitutionally cannot, substitute a statutory per se rule of reasonableness in place of judicial review to determine whether a search is supported by probable cause when that warrant is executed. As construed and applied by the majority today, the determination of whether a search warrant has been executed within the duration of probable cause as the basis for a reasonable search and seizure is relinquished to the Legislature for expression in a statutory prescription, the per se rule of *679reasonableness of time recognized by the majority in Groves’ case, notwithstanding the constitutionally conferred power and corresponding obligation that only the judiciary may determine whether a search or seizure is reasonable and, therefore, permissible in light of the constitutional safeguards against an unreasonable search and seizure. In People v. Hernandez, 43 Cal. App. 3d 581, 588, 118 Cal. Rptr. 53, 58 (1974), the court rejected existence of a statutory per se rule of reasonableness found in a California statute which provided that “ ‘[a] search warrant executed within the 10-day period shall be deemed to have been timely executed and no further showing of timeliness need be made.’ ” In Hernandez, the court concluded that a statute “which forecloses any inquiry into the continued existence of probable cause, [which inquiry] would prevent executions of search warrants in situations in which such an inquiry would reveal that the probable cause which existed at the time of the issuance had, in fact, completely disappeared at the time of the execution,” would preclude judicial inquiry whether execution of the search warrant was reasonable and would, consequently, be unconstitutional. People v. Hernandez, supra at 589, 118 Cal. Rptr. at 58. See, also, State v. Edwards, supra (probable cause can disappear within the 5-day statutory period allowed for execution of a search warrant); Donaldson v. State, 46 Md. App. 521, 420 A.2d 281 (1980) (rejecting contention that a search-warrant executed within the statutory 15-day period is, per se, timely in conformity with the constitutional safeguard against an unreasonable search and seizure).
Therefore, the proper inquiry for a reviewing court is whether probable cause dissipated into extinction during the interval between issuance of a warrant and its execution. See, United States v. Lemmons, 527 F.2d 662 (6th Cir. 1975); U.S. v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1988). Pursuant to the preceding standard, the inquiry into probable cause for execution of a search warrant is the same as the inquiry for issuance of a search warrant, namely, whether there is probable cause to search.
We have stated:
It is a general and well-established rule that the proof of *680probable cause which must be made before a search warrant may be issued must be of facts so closely related to the time of the issuance of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time, and whether the proof meets this test must be determined by the circumstances of each case. Generally, it may be said that no more than a “reasonable” time may have elapsed, and the recital must be of facts so closely related to the time of the issuance of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at the time.
State v. Kallos, 193 Neb. 113, 117, 225 N.W.2d 553, 556 (1975). See, also, State v. Eary, 235 Neb. 254, 454 N.W.2d 685 (1990) (probable cause involves the fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place).
The ultimate criterion in determining the degree of evaporation of probable cause, however, is not case law but reason. The likelihood that the evidence sought is still in place is a function not simply of watch and calendar but of variables that do not punch a clock: the character of the crime (chance encounter in the night or regenerating conspiracy?), of the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?), of the thing to be seized (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?), of the place to be searched (mere criminal forum of convenience or secure operational base?), etc. The observation of a half-smoked marijuana cigarette in an ashtray at a cocktail party may well be stale the day after the cleaning lady has been in; the observation of the burial of a corpse in a cellar may well not be stale three decades later. The hare and the tortoise do not disappear at the same rate of speed.
Andresen v. State, 24 Md. App. 128, 172, 331 A.2d 78, 106 (1975).
Where the affidavit recites a mere isolated violation it would not be unreasonable to imply that probable cause dwindles rather quickly with the passage of time. However, where the affidavit properly recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant.
*681United States v. Johnson, 461 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir. 1972). See, also, State v. Eary, supra.
In Groves’ case, the search warrant was obtained on April 20,1989, and executed 9 days later, on April 29, in the search for 2 grams of methamphetamine and a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun. Therefore, the proper review is an inquiry to determine whether the probable cause at issuance of the warrant had disappeared by the time the search warrant was executed. After issuance of the search warrant, police, hoping to tie Groves to narcotics traffic, undertook surveillance of the residence where Groves was staying, but the record does not reflect what, if any, information the police gained during their surveillance.
We have stated:
In determining the correctness of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, the Supreme Court will uphold the trial court’s findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous. State v. Blakely, 227 Neb. 816, 420 N.W.2d 300 (1988). In determining whether a trial court’s findings on a motion to suppress are clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court recognizes the trial court as the “trier of fact” and takes into consideration that the trial court has observed witnesses testifying regarding such motion to suppress. State v. Blakely, supra.
State v. Abdouch, 230 Neb. 929, 930, 434 N.W.2d 317, 319 (1989). Accord State v. Juhl, 234 Neb. 33, 449 N.W.2d 202 (1989).
Some courts have determined that probable cause dissipates rather rapidly when small, or unspecified, amounts of narcotics or controlled substances are involved. See, State v. Boneventure, 374 So. 2d 1238 (La. 1979) (when the search warrant affidavit stated that 2 days before issuance of the warrant, “a quantity” of marijuana was offered for consumption in defendants’ residence, there was no basis for a reasonable belief that the marijuana was still in the defendants’ residence at the time the warrant was issued, because the amount described in the affidavit was a “consumable” amount; hence, no probable cause); People v David, 119 Mich. App. 289, 326 N.W.2d 485 (1982) (when only a single marijuana sale *682was involved and described in the search warrant affidavit without further allegation of other criminal activity involving a controlled substance, 3 days between the observation described in the search warrant and issuance of the warrant prevented probable cause for the search warrant). Other courts have been more lenient regarding the interval between an observation recounted in a search warrant affidavit as probable cause and issuance of the warrant; for example, notwithstanding the interval, probable, cause existed for a search warrant in the following decisions: People v. Mesa, 14 Cal. 3d 466, 535 P.2d 337, 121 Cal. Rptr. 473 (1975) (an informant’s observations, which occurred 6 days before issuance of the search warrant, were contained in the search warrant affidavit); Grant v. State, 130 Ga. App. 231, 202 S.E.2d 675 (1973) (according to the search warrant affidavit, an informant saw marijuana on the premises 5 days before issuance of the search warrant); State v. Welsh, 371 So. 2d 1314 (La. 1979) (an informant observed red and white capsules, LSD tablets, and an undetermined amount of marijuana 4 days before issuance of the search warrant); State v. Iverson, 364 N.W.2d 518 (S.D. 1985) (the informant saw a controlled substance in defendant’s apartment 3 days before issuance of the warrant); State v. Bruno, 427 So. 2d 1174 (La. 1983) (informant’s observations 4 days before issuance of the warrant, which was executed 7 days later, pertained to ongoing activity in controlled substances); and State v. Yaritz, 287 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1979) (6-day interval was permissible when the search warrant affidavit indicated continual sales of controlled substances).
Courts have had little difficulty with probable cause regarding an observation or information concerning a weapon or other articles and instruments used for commission of a crime. United States v. Steeves, 525 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975), involved a search warrant for clothing, a ski mask, a handgun and a moneybag, all of which were sought as evidence pertaining to a bank robbery which had occurred 3 months earlier. The court stated in Steeves:
Obviously, a highly incriminating or consumable item of personal property is less likely to remain in one place as long as an item of property which is not consumable or *683which is innocuous in itself or not particularly incriminating----
Let it be assumed for purposes of discussion that the defendant in fact robbed the bank on June 22 and that he immediately repaired to his home with his loot and its container, his weapon and his disguise. We think that it may be conceded to the defendant that as late as September 17 there was little reason to believe that any of the bank’s money or the money bag would still be in the home. But, the same concession cannot be made with respect to the revolver, the ski mask, and the clothing. The ski mask and the clothes were not incriminating in themselves, and apart from his prior felony record possession of the pistol was not unlawful in itself or particularly incriminating. Moreover, people who own pistols.generally keep them at home or on their persons.
United States v. Steeves, supra at 38. Other courts have reached a conclusion similar to that in Steeves concerning existence of probable cause;.for instance, United States v. Gann, 732 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1984) (observations some 3 weeks before issuance of a search warrant were not too far removed for issuance of a search warrant concerning clothes worn and weapons used in a robbery); Bastida v. Henderson, 487 F.2d 860 (5th Cir. 1973) (observations 10 days before issuance of the search warrant for firearms used in a robbery); Blount v. State, 511 A.2d 1030 (Del. 1986) (observations 10 days before issuance of a search warrant for clothing and a firearm used for a homicide); Jensen v. State, 482 A.2d 105 (Del. 1984) (observations 27 days before issuance of the warrant for clothing and a firearm associated with a sexual assault); and State v. Friel, 508 A.2d 123 (Me. 1986) (observations 13 days before issuance of the search warrant for a firearm).
The district court’s overruling Groves’ motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous under the circumstances. Admittedly, the question whether.-probable cause existed to search for methamphetamine is rather close, when one considers the relatively small quantity of methamphetamine observed by the informant and mentioned in the officer’s affidavit. However, the interval between issuance of the warrant and its execution is *684insufficient to compel the conclusion that the information which was the basis for issuance of the search warrant had become stale and, therefore, negated existence of probable cause when the warrant was executed. Moreover, probable cause existed to search for the sawed-off shotgun because police officers had a reasonable belief that the shotgun was still in the residence 9 days after the search warrant was issued. See, U.S. v. Williams, 897 F.2d 1034 (10th Cir. 1990) (information, as a basis for the search warrant, was not so stale as to render officers’ reliance on the warrant unreasonable); State v. One 1987 Toyota Pickup, 233 Neb. 670, 447 N.W.2d 243 (1989) (although the search warrant affidavit contained illegally obtained information, the search warrant was valid because the affidavit also contained lawfully obtained information which, considered alone, established probable cause). See, also, State v. Guilbeault, 214 Neb. 904, 336 N.W.2d 593 (1983); State v. Welsh, 214 Neb. 60, 332 N.W.2d 685 (1983). Accordingly, police conducted a valid search of the residence where Groves was staying; therefore, the contraband discovered pursuant to that search was admissible in Grove’s trial. Thus, the district court was not clearly erroneous in overruling Groves’ suppression motion.
Although the majority correctly affirms Groves’ convictions, application of § 29-815 as a per se rule for subsistence of probable cause concerning , a search warrant executed within the statutorily allowed 10-day period is clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s instruction that a constitutional question regarding “staleness” of information used for probable cause “must be determined by the circumstances of each case.” Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 211, 53 S. Ct. 138, 77 L. Ed. 260 (1932). Therefore, adoption of a per se statutory rule for determining reasonableness in execution of a search warrant is constitutionally unsound and results in the unconstitutional relinquishment of judicial authority and responsibility to examine and determine whether probable cause existed for execution of a search warrant.-
Caporale, J., joins in this concurrence.