State of Iowa v. Cody Aldean Logan ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1861
Filed August 15, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CODY ALDEAN LOGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Robert J. Dull, District
Associate Judge.
Cody Logan appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana, second
offense. AFFIRMED.
Jared R. Weber of Weber Law Office, Orange City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel L. Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Following a trial on the minutes of testimony, Cody Logan was convicted of
possession of marijuana, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section
124.401(5) (2016). On appeal, Logan contends the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as a result of an unlawful
search of his residence. More specifically, Logan contends the warrant authorizing
the search of his residence was not supported by probable cause.
Warrants must be supported by probable cause. “The existence of probable
cause to search a particular area depends on whether a person of reasonable
prudence would believe that evidence of a crime might be located on the premises
to be searched.” State v. Davis, 679 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Iowa 2004). This requires
the applicant to establish “a nexus between criminal activity, the things to be
seized, and the place to be searched.” State v. Green, 540 N.W.2d 649, 644 (Iowa
1995). In determining whether probable cause exists, the issuing judge must
“make a practical, commonsense decision whether . . . there is a fair probability
that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238–39 (1983); see Davis, 679 N.W.2d at 656. In
conducting appellate review of the issuing judge’s determination, we do not make
an independent determination of probable cause. See State v. Johnson, 756
N.W.2d 682, 686 (Iowa 2008). Instead, we determine only “whether the issuing
judge or magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed.”
Id. When conducting our review, we only consider the information presented to
the district court. Id.
3
In this case, the application for the search warrant contained the following
information. The investigating officer had twenty-six years of law-enforcement
experience. Logan resided at 1022 Walnut Street, Hull, Iowa, a single-family
residence, with his girlfriend and her family. The investigating officer had personal
knowledge that Logan had a history of drug use. Also residing at 1022 Walnut
Street was another individual who was known by the investigating officer to be a
drug user. The investigating officer observed significant foot traffic into and out of
the residence during the month of December 2016. The investigating officer
observed many vehicles coming and going from the home during the month of
December 2016. The investigating officer, based on his training and experience,
knew the traffic into and out of the residence at issue was consistent with drug use
in the home or trafficking out of the home. On December 28, 2016, the
investigating officer conducted a trash pull from the trash left outside 1022 Walnut
Street. The investigating officer found eight small plastic baggies and three pieces
of aluminum foil in the trash bags. Based on the officer’s training and experience,
the officer knew drugs were commonly packaged and stored in small plastic
baggies similar to those found in the trash bags. The investigating officer observed
a green leafy substance in the baggies. The green leafy substance tested positive
for marijuana. The investigating officer observed small crystal particles in one of
the small plastic baggies. The crystal particles tested positive for
methamphetamine.
On appeal, Logan challenges several of the above-stated facts provided in
support of the application, but the heart of his challenge is that there was
insufficient evidence establishing a nexus between himself, the residence to be
4
searched, and drug activity. We disagree the application was deficient. We do not
view each piece of information in the warrant in isolation; rather, we look at the
totality of facts set forth in the warrant application. See Davis, 679 N.W.2d at 656
(“We use the totality of the circumstances standard . . . to determine whether
probable cause has been established for the issuance of a search warrant.”).
Here, the investigating officer had significant experience. The officer identified
Logan as a resident of the single-family home to be searched. The investigating
officer knew Logan had a history of drug use. The investigating officer personally
observed activity in the home consistent with drug use and trafficking. The officer
conducted a trash pull from trash left outside the residence and found
paraphernalia, marijuana, and methamphetamine. The application for the warrant
was submitted immediately after the trash pull was conducted. These facts, in
addition to the remainder of the facts set forth in the application, when considered
together and not in isolation, provide a substantial basis for the issuing judge to
find probable to issue the warrant. See State v. Padavich, 536 N.W.2d 743, 748
(Iowa 1995) (stating a suspect’s past involvement with drugs and reputation is a
factor when reaching a probable cause determination); State v. Godberson, 493
N.W.2d 852, 856 (Iowa 1992) (“An officer’s expert opinion is an important factor to
be considered by the judge reviewing a warrant application.”); State v. Jones, No.
15-1520, 2016 WL 3281046, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 15, 2016) (holding warrant
supported by probable cause where observations of drug activity in single family
residence were corroborated by trash pull and citing similar cases); State v. Smith,
476 N.W.2d 86, 89 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (finding probable cause where application
contained information regarding known drug users).
5
The district court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress
evidence. We affirm the defendant’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.