Court Opinion

ID: 9553821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:35:42.424349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:18.729442
License: Public Domain

LOPEZ, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in that part of Judge Sutin’s opinion resolving defendant’s speedy trial claim. I also concur in the result reached by Judge Sutin that defendant should have, “ . . .a new trial free of any evidence seized under the search warrant.” The motion to suppress should have been granted, in my view, because the affidavit of the officer was insufficient to support the warrant. Since my decision is based on this ground, I express no opinion on the views stated by Judge Sutin. The most critical portion of the affidavit in the case at bar is a telephone tip made by an unknown informer to the victim of the crime, who relayed the information through police channels to the affiant. The tip, as summarized in the affidavit, is set out as follows: “ . . . .Mr. Grosver [referring to the victim, Ansan Grosvenor] advised [Detective] Ray Alt that he received a call, that the person committing the burglary was a man named ‘Bob’. Grosver [sic] further related that the caller advised him that his stolen coin collection was presently in the possession of Will Sanchez, who ownes [sic] a Credit Bureaus [sic] in Belen and Taos, New Mexico. Grosver [sic] reported that Sanchez has an airplane and is preparing to fly the coin collection in his (Sanchez[’]) plane this AM from Belen Airport to the Sun-land Airport in El Paso, Texas. Sanchez will attempt to sell the coins in El Paso. ...” Some question could be raised as to whether Sanchez’ alleged travel plans were part of the tip or an independent conclusion of Grosvenor. I will assume the former because, “ . . . issuing magistrates are not to be confined by niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense . . . ”, and because, “ . . . their determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts. . . . ” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). A two prong test for judging the sufficiency of an unidentified informant’s tip was set out by the Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), as follows: “Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, . . . was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable.’ Since the affidavit does not state any basis for the informant’s conclusions concerning who was involved in the burglary and subsequent possession of the coins, prong one of the Aguilar test is not met. See State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360 (Ct.App.1969). A question arises as to whether this defect in the affidavit is properly before this Court for review. I believe that the defendant has pointed out the defect with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of § 21-2-1(15) (14), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4), requiring “[a]rgument and authorities.” The brief in chief states : “ . . . there exists no indication in the Affidavit that the information of the unknown ‘caller’ was the personal knowledge of the caller, or was conveyed to the caller by even further removed and unknown sources. In short, the Affidavit set forth hearsay on hearsay emanating from an undescribed, ‘anonymous’ and totally unknown source. . . . ” By this statement the defendant correctly alleged that the basis for the informant's conclusion, whether personal observation or otherwise, was unknown. This is a sufficient factual basis for a prong one argument. See State v. Lewis, supra. In addition, defendant, in the same paragraph of his brief, .cites the applicable case, Aguilar, and quotes the portion of that case which holds the affidavit involved therein defident on the basis of prong one. In the next paragraph, the defendant anticipates and refutes the State’s argument, based on Spinelli v. United States, supra, to the effect that a sufficiently corroborated tip need not contain prong one information. Since the brief stated a factual basis for the prong one argument and since it discussed the applicable legal concepts, there was compliance with § 21-2-1(15) (14), supra. Furthermore, the State waived any defect. The answer brief states: “The courts have consistently held that the citizen informer’s tip [whose identity is known], and often the underworld informer’s tip [whose identity is unknown] does not have to set forth how the informer had come into possession of the information, whether based on personal observation or otherwise. This is particularly true when there is considerable detail as to the items that have been taken, or there is other substantiating evidence available. [citing cases] The State argues the prong one claim directly, on the merits. Therefore, it has waived any defect under § 21-2-1(15) (14), supra. See Sproles v. McDonald, 70 N.M. 168, 372 P.2d 122 (1962). If any doubt remains, I believe the problem can be resolved by reference to this Court’s discretion. Once the argument has passed a certain threshold level of specificity, the question of compliance with the rule largely becomes one of judgment. Hard and fast rules cannot be made in such a situation. Here there is no question that defendant has challenged the affidavit in some manner. The reason why I think that discretion should be exercised in favor of review here relates to the nature of this case. This is a criminal case with a question of constitutional rights involved. Judge Sutin has ably pointed out the importance of these rights and the necessity of scrupulously safeguarding them. Furthermore, there is another forum in which these rights can be asserted. Federal ha- beas corpus is available despite the existence of state procedural bars. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). Failure to review will only prolong the matter and delay the ultimate vindication of the defendant’s rights. The merits are governed by Spinelli v. United States, supra, where the Court stated : “ . . . In the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the tip describe the accused’s criminal activity in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation.” The amount of corroborated detail in the tip in this case is comparable to that alleged in the Spinelli affidavit, which the Court held insufficient. The tip in the case at bar was independently corroborated in three ways. First, it was learned that the Will Sanchez who was being surveilled was the same Will Sanchez referred to in the tip since the police learned that there was indeed a Will Sanchez operating a credit bureau in Belen as the informant stated. Second, the police surveillance indicated that Sanchez was indeed associating with a person named “Bob.” That person was the defendant, Robert Montoya. Third, the defendant, Sanchez and others were evidently preparing for travel as the informant alleged. In Spinelli there was only one major corroborated detail: that the defendant was seen at an apartment whose two telephone numbers corresponded to those which the tipster alleged were being used by the defendant in illegal bookmaking operations. I think the fact of association and planned travel of the two persons named in the tip in this case is less incriminating and corroborative than the telephone numbers in Spinelli, “ . . . in light of the common knowledge that bookmaking is often carried on over the telephone and from premises ostensibly used by others for perfectly normal purposes. . ” This conclusion is given more weight by the fact that the defendant, Robert Montoya, was not specifically named in the tip, as was the defendant in Spinelli. The amount of corroborated detail here falls short of that found in cases like Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), which the Supreme Court used as a touchstone in Spinelli. Therefore, the motion to suppress should have been granted.