Summary 2007 WY 142

Summary of Decision issued September 5, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Abeyta v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 142

Docket Number: 06-123

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, Interim State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and David L. Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issues: Whether the affidavit executed in support of the search warrant provided the warrant-issuing judicial officer with a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to search Abeyta’s residence.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant was arrested and charged with three separate criminal drug charges after a search of his residence revealed drugs and drug paraphernalia.
Standard of Review: When reviewing the adequacy of a probable cause affidavit, the Court has stated their duty is to ensure that the warrant-issuing official had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.
The Fourth Amendment and the Wyoming Constitution protect citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The state provision requires that probable cause finding for issuance of a search warrant is to be supported by affidavit. When reviewing, the Court begins with the presumption that the affidavit presented was valid. The warrant-issuing judicial officer must examine the affidavit to determine whether the factual statements contained provide probable cause and applies the “totality of circumstances” analysis. Abeyta’s paragraph-by-paragraph analysis is inconsistent with the above stated approach.
Abeyta relied on Hixon but the facts were distinguishable because unlike the affidavit in Hixon, this affidavit contained independent reliable and verifiable information supporting a finding of probable cause. The Court agreed that there was lack of corroboration supporting the “known drug users” statement. The Court stated the law requires that the affidavit must include more than the bare conclusions of the affiant and determine whether as a whole the warrant-issuing officer had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Firsthand observations of a law enforcement officer may include the raw data of his own sense perceptions including the officers’ detailed observations of the activities of individuals at Abeyta’s house and shed. Information from an informant must be based on more than mere information and belief. The informant specifically stated that Abeyta had offered to provide him/her with methamphetamine and provided specific detail regarding a handgun that Abeyta carried. The Court stated that the level of detail implied the informant had firsthand knowledge of what was being reported which allowed the report to properly be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances showing probable cause. The factual link between Abeyta’s house and the methamphetamine was not broken as Abeyta argued. The affidavit indicated that the officer maintained visual contact with the buyer’s vehicle from the time it left Abeyta’s residence until it was eventually stopped. Therefore, a sufficient factual nexus existed between the suspected criminal activity, the contraband to be seized and the place to be searched.

Holding: The Court concluded that based on the information contained in the affidavit, a reasonably cautious and prudent person would believe there was a fair probability that a crime was being committed or had been committed at Abeyta’s residence.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/27q3tb .