Summary 2006 WY 162

Summary of Decision issued December 28, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Crackenberger v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 162

Docket Number: 05-192

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ken M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Diane Courselle, Defender Aid Program Director; Suzannah B. Gambell, Student Intern; and Skip S. Reynolds, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Reynolds.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Matthew D. Obrecht, Student Intern; and Mackenzie Williams, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Williams.

Issue: Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence because the information provided by named informants was unreliable, had no basis of knowledge, or was stale.

Holding: Appellant pled guilty to one count of child endangerment for permitting a child to remain in a dwelling wherein methamphetamine was possessed, stored, or ingested.

Standard of Review: The duty of reviewing courts is simply to ensure that the warrant-issuing judicial officer had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. The Court reviewed the search warrant affidavit at issue in the instant appeal. The State of Wyoming requires an affidavit establishing probable cause before a search warrant is issued which offers Wyoming citizens stronger protections against search and seizure than the U. S. Constitution. However, the Court has stressed that a judicial officer must ultimately come to a practical, common-sense decision. Where, as in this case the affidavit relies on hearsay statements of third parties, the Court has stated the judicial officer must know both the person’s veracity or reliability and basis of knowledge. The citizen informants in the instant case were all identified and in contrast to police informants, were presumptively reliable sources of information. Each informant gave independent information that corroborated the statements of the other informants. The affidavit established that the informants had sufficient first-hand knowledge of the appellant’s criminal activities to justify issuing a search warrant. The Court’s review of the information satisfied them that under the “totality of the circumstances” approach, the information when combined with the high degree of reliability of the informants and the experience and knowledge of the affiant, established sufficient probable cause that methamphetamine and methamphetamine paraphernalia would be found in the home. Timeliness depends on the nature of the criminal activity, the length of the activity and the nature of the property to be seized. In the instant case, Appellant’s argument ignored the information provided by informant D4, which indicated that during the previous week, the criminal activity had continued to worsen.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y7wj9w .