State of Washington v. Warren L. Lemmon ( 2015 )

FILED
MARCH 17, 2015
J n the Office of the Clerk of Cou rt
W A State Court of Appeals, Division IIJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 32291-2-III
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
WARREN L. LEMMON, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, C.J. - After the trial court denied Warren Lemmon's motion to
suppress evidence obtained in a search of his home, he was found guilty of possession of
a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver. He appeals the trial court's
denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the affidavit in support of the search
warrant relied on information provided by a confidential informant without providing
evidence of the informant's basis of knowledge and veracity required by the
Aguilar/Spinelli) test for probable cause. He argues that in denying the motion, the trial
court mistakenly relied on the federal "totality of the circumstances" standard.
) Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108,84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964); Spinelli
v. United States, 393 U.S. 410,89 S. Ct. 584,21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969). Both Aguilar and
Spinelli were abrogated by Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d
527 (1983), but adhered to by State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 688 P.2d 136 (1984).
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
Mr. Lenunon's focus on the trial court's reference to the "totality of the
information" is misplaced. Read as a whole, the trial court's findings and conclusions
following the CrR 3.6 hearing make clear that it reviewed the warrant affidavit by
applying the two-pronged test of Aguilar/Spinelli. For that reason, and because the
warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2011, Detective Steve Valley of the Mason County Sheriffs Office
sought and obtained a search warrant for Warren Lemmon's motor home and any
outbuildings and vehicles on Mr. Lemmon's property. Among information set forth in
the detective's affidavit in support of the warrant was the following:
that a confidential informant had told officers that Mr. Lemmon "sells
Methamphetamine and Heroin and keeps it in his motorhome," and that the
informant "could buy both controlled substances from him";
that information about Mr. Lemmon's drug sales and possession had been
"corroborated by mUltiple reliable sources over the past year";
that officers had conducted a controlled buy at Mr. Lemmon's residence
during the week of August 8, 2011;
that the controlled buy was initiated by searching the informant for
contraband and money; providing him or her with "inventoried m·onies";
driving the informant to the intersection of Centerline and Rivendell Road,
where they let him or her out to walk to Mr. Lemmon's motor home,
located at the end of Centerline Road;
that they watched the informant walk to and return from the home to the
extent they could, although the affidavit conceded that detectives "couldn't
keep a constant visual on [the informant] all the way down to Lemmon's
residence, due to the rural setting and location of his residence";
2
No. 32291-2-II1
State v. Lemmon
that the controlled buy was completed by picking up the informant on his or
her return to the drop off point; taking him or her to a predetermined
location without allowing contact with others; recovering from the
informant the predetermined amount of methamphetamine that he or she
had purchased; and again searching the informant to confirm that he or she
had no other contraband or monies;
that in aninterview with police after the controlled buy, the informant
related that there were two females inside Mr. Lemmon's motor home
smoking heroin while he or she was inside buying the drugs; that Mr.
Lemmon's motor home was surrounded by a wooden fence and there was a
metal gate at the front of the property; that he or she had observed a travel
trailer, several cars, and a small shed on the property; and that there was a
"very mean pit bull" in a dog house next to the motor home;
that on the same day as the controlled buy, a detective and an animal
control officer drove to Mr. Lemmon's property and verified the
informant's description of it;
that the informant had provided detectives with information in the past that
had led to several arrests and felony charges;
that the informant's ongoing cooperation was motivated by his or her hope
to receive a favorable recommendation in connection with pending charges
in Mason County in exchange for reliable information leading to successful
prosecutions, and
that the informant had made a number of statements against his or her penal
interest.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 57-59.
A search warrant was issued and the sheriffs office executed it on August 15.
Among incriminating items found and seized in the search were $3,874 in cash, 129.7
grams of methamphetamine, 130.4 grams of heroin, 34 methadone pills, 47.4 grams of
marijuana, several unused baggies, and a scale with a tar substance on the surface.
3
No. 32291-2-II1
State v. Lemmon
Mr. Lemmon was charged with one count of possession with intent to deliver a
controlled substance under RCW 69.50.401 (1) and one count of possession of a
controlled substance under RCW 69.50.4013(1).
Mr. Lemmon moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of his
property. He argued there was insufficient evidence to establish the reliability of the
infonnant and the controlled buy was improperly executed because the officers were
unable to maintain constant surveillance of the infonnant. The trial court denied the
suppression motion. It later entered written findings and conclusions in which it found
that there were no disputed facts and concluded that the infonnant's reliability was
supported by evidence of a controlled buy, the infonnant's motive to provide reliable
infonnation in order to receive favorable treatment, and the informant's track record.
Two months later, Mr. Lemmon moved the court to conduct a Franks 2 hearing, "to
determine whether statement(s) made in the application for search warrant by Det. Steve
Valley were material omissions or false statements made intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth." CP at 28. Specifically, he argued that the affidavit "indicated
that the setting of the Defendant's residence was 'rural', meaning that there were no other
residences located in the area, thus leading to the conclusion that the drugs came from the
2 Franksv. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978).
4
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
Defendant's residence." CP at 28-29. The motion was supported by a declaration from
Mr. Lemmon, in which he stated that he had measured distances from the intersection of
Rivendell and Centerline to his and other residences on Centerline. He testified that there
were two residences roughly 250 feet from that intersection, one on either side, and three
other residences further down Centerline (416 feet, 581 feet, and 764 feet, respectively).
He stated that his own residence, which was at the end of Centerline, was set back 133
feet from the road.
Mr. Lemmon argued that the presence of other residences was inconsistent with
Detective Valley's statement in the warrant affidavit that "SOG [Special Operations
Group, the narcotics investigation division for Mason County] detectives couldn't keep a
constant visual on the PO [police informant] all the way down to Lemmon's residence,
due to the rural setting and location of his residence." CP 58 (emphasis added).
The court granted Mr. Lemmon's request for a Franks hearing. At the time of the
hearing, Detective Valley testified that Mr. Lemmon's property was at the very end of
Centerline, a dead-end road, and that in describing it as "rural," he meant:
First of all, it was completely wooded. It's off of a private-or, I mean,
county road. The county road quit. It was wooded. There was one other
house down there on the assessor's page. The assessor's office got it listed
as Rural 10, which means it's ten acres or more.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 81. The State also offered a recent map of the area,
obtained from the Internet, along with photographs taken by Detective Valley, that
5
No. 32291-2-III
State v. Lemmon
"show[ed] basically the route to Mr. Lemmon's house from where [the detective]
dropped the informant off." RP at 86. When cross-examined, the detective admitted that
there were driveways and roads in the vicinity, but for the most part he did not know
whether they led to other residences. Following the State's evidence, the defense called
Mr. Lemmon, who used the State's photographs to describe where neighboring
residences were located.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court observed that there was testimony
that the area is completely wooded and was zoned Rural 10. Referring to the
photographs, the court stated, "[T]here's no contest that this is not an urban setting.
There is not multiple houses there." RP at 109. While noting Mr. Lemmon's testimony
that there were other residences in the area, the court stated it could not find any
misstatement or omission by Detective Valley in light of the detective's testimony that he
was unaware of other residences, which the court observed were "not visible from the
pictures going down the road." Id. The court concluded, as it had earlier, that the
warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause.
Following a stipulated facts trial, Mr. Lemmon was convicted as charged. He
appeals.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Lemmon assigns error to the admission of evidence obtained from the search
of his home on the basis that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. He
6
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
focuses on the trial court's third conclusion oflaw following the CrR 3.6 hearing, which
states, "In determining the reliability of the confidential informant, the Court looks at the
totality of the information set forth in the affidavit." CP at 24. He argues from the
reference to the "totality of the infonnation" that the court applied the wrong standard in
determining the existence of probable cause. He also argues that under the proper
standard for evaluating probable cause-the Aguilar/Spinelli test-the evidence was
insufficient. We address the assignments of error in tum.
1. The trial court applied the proper standard
We first address Mr. Lemmon's contention that in reviewing whether the warrant
affidavit demonstrated probable cause supporting issuance of the search warrant, the trial
court applied the wrong legal standard.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of
the Washington Constitution require that the issuance of a search warrant be based upon a
detennination of probable cause. State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91,108,59 P.3d 58 (2002);
CrR 2.3(c). "Probable cause is established when an affidavit supporting a search warrant
provides sufficient facts for a reasonable person to conclude there is a probability the
defendant is involved in the criminal activity." Vickers, 148 Wn.2d at 108; State v. Clay,
7 Wn. App. 631, 637, 501 P.2d 603 (1972).
For an informant's tip (as detailed in an affidavit) to create probable cause
for a search warrant to issue: (1) the officer's affidavit must set forth some
of the underlying circumstances from which the informant drew his
7
No. 32291-2-III
State v. Lemmon
conclusion so that a magistrate can independently evaluate the reliability of
the manner in which the infonnant acquired his infonnation; and (2) the
affidavit must set forth some of the underlying circumstances from which
the officer concluded that the informant was credible or his information
reliable.
State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 435, 688 P.2d 136 (1984) (citing Aguilar, 378 U.S. at
114,84 S. Ct. at 1514 and Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 413,89 S. Ct. at 587)). Stated another
way, the warrant affidavit "must demonstrate the informant's (1) 'basis of knowledge'
and (2) 'veracity.'" State v. Taylor, 74 Wn. App. Ill, 116,872 P.2d 53 (1994) (quoting
Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 437). "Underlying the Aguilar/Spinelli test is the basic belief that
the determination of probable cause to issue a warrant must be made by a magistrate, not
law enforcement officers who seek warrants." Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 436-37. To ensure
a magistrate is not merely a "rubber stamp," the affidavit must "infonn[s] him of the
underlying circumstances which lead the officer to conclude that the infonnant was
credible and obtained the infonnation in a reliable way." Id. at 437.
While the Aguilar/Spinelli test was first articulated by the United States Supreme
Court, that Court abandoned the test in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317,
2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983), in favor of a "totality of the circumstances" approach.
"The principal difference between the Gates approach and the Aguilar-Spinelli rule is that
'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge', while still relevant, are no longer both essential.
Under Gates, a 'deficiency' on either of these 'prongs' may 'be compensated for' by a
'strong showing' on the other prong." Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 435-36 (quoting Gates,
8
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
103 S. Ct. at 2329). "The 'totality of the circumstances' analysis downgrades the
veracity and basis of knowledge elements and makes them only 'relevant
considerations. '" Jd. at 436 (quoting Gates, 103 S. Ct. at 2329).
In Jackson, the Washington Supreme Court criticized what it characterized as
Gates's "nebulous standard" for determining the existence of probable cause. Jd. at 435.
As the Jackson court explained, "[t]he two prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test have an
independent status; they are analytically severable and each insures the validity of the
information." Jackson, lO2 Wn.2d at 437. Refusing to "follow, blindly, the lead of the
United States Supreme Court," the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the
Aguilar/Spinelli test as the continuing basis on which a warrant would be tested under
article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Jd. at 438-39.
Both Mr. Lemmon and the State agree that the Aguilar/Spinelli test is the
appropriate test for evaluating the warrant affidavit. According to Mr. Lemmon,
however, the trial court mistakenly applied the federal standard. He bases his argument
on the trial court's reference in its third conclusion of law to having looked "at the totality
of the information set forth in the affidavit." Br. of Appellant at 8 (citing CP at 24).
We agree with the State that in focusing on the word "totality," Mr. Lemmon
ignores the fair import of the conclusions as a whole. Read in its entirety, the court's
third conclusion states, "In determining the reliability of the confidential informant, the
Court looks at the totality of the information set forth in the affidavit." CP at 24. The
9
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
conclusion is consistent with the well-established principle that the issuing judge need not
look at each fact set forth in the affidavit in isolation, but is to consider "all the facts and
circumstances sworn to by the person seeking the warrant." State v. Riley, 34 Wn. App.
529,531,663 P.2d 145 (1983).
This is consistent with the court's oral ruling, which also referred to "the totality
of the infonnation" in the affidavit, stating:
In determining whether or not there is a probable cause for a search
warrant, I'm looking at whether or not the elements of Aguilar-Spinelli
have been met. The Court looks at the four comers of the warrant. The
Court can have some due deference to the issuing magistrate, and the Court
looks at the totality of the infonnation as well as looking at just what is
established for the basis and reliability-basic knowledge and reliability of
the infonnant.
RP at 15.
The court's conclusions 4, 5, and 6 stated that the reliability of the informant was
satisfied by the evidence of a controlled buy, the fact that the reduction of charges sought
by the informant was not likely to occur if he or she provided false information, and the
infonnant's track record. Nowhere in the court's oral ruling or written findings and
conclusions did the court refer to Gates or use the term "totality of the circumstances."
No fair reading of the court's findings, conclusions, and earlier oral ruling
supports Mr. Lemmon's argument that the trial court applied the wrong standard in ruling
on his motion to suppress.
10
No. 32291-2-II1
State v. Lemmon
11. The requirements of Aguilar/Spinelli were satisfied
We turn to whether the requirements of Aguilar/Spinelli were satisfied. Mr.
Lemmon argues that they were not, and challenges the trial court's fourth and sixth
conclusions of law: that the reliability of the informant was satisfied by the evidence of a
controlled buy and by evidence of his or her track record.
Whether probable cause is established is a legal conclusion that we review de
novo. State v. Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d 30, 40,162 P.3d 389 (2007); State v. Neth, 165
Wn.2d 177, 182, 196 P.3d 658, 661 (2008). We accord great deference to the
magistrate's determination of probable cause, and will only disturb its decision to issue a
warrant where there is an abuse of discretion. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d at 108; State v. Cord,
103 Wn.2d 361, 366, 693 P.2d 81 (1985). The affidavit "should not be viewed in a
hyperteclmical manner." Riley, 34 Wn. App. at 531. "[A] magistrate is entitled to draw
reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances set forth in the supporting
affidavit," with the result that "[r]easonableriess is the key and common sense must be the
ultimate yardstick." Jd. "Doubts concerning the existence of probable cause are
generally resolved in favor of issuing the search warrant." Vickers, 148 Wn.2d at 108-09.
Mr. Lemmon has not assigned error to the trial court's finding at the conclusion of
the Franks hearing that Detective Valley did not deliberately or recklessly misstate or
11
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
omit facts.3 Our review is therefore limited, as was the trial court's, to the four comers of
the warrant affidavit. Neth, 165 Wn.2d at 182.
As a threshold matter, Mr. Lemmon (citing State v. Ibarra, 61 Wn. App. 695, 699,
812 P.2d 114 (1991) and State v. Rodriguez, 53 Wn. App. 571, 575-77,769 P.2d 309(1989)), contends that a heightened showing of reliability is required where, as here, the
identity of the informant is unknown to the issuing judge. Both decisions state that when
information is provided by an identified citizen informant, the State's burden of
demonstrating reliability is relaxed. Ibarra, 61 Wn. App. at 699 ("[T]he State's burden
of demonstrating the identified citizen's credibility is generally relaxed."); Rodriguez, 53
Wn. App. at 574 ("When police receive information from an uninvolved witness or
victim of a crime, the necessary showing of credibility is relaxed."). Where the
informant is an ordinary citizen rather than a criminal or professional informant and his
or her identity is revealed to the magistrate, the informant's "detailed description of the
3 Mr. Lemmon devotes a concluding portion of his opening brief to an argument,
in part, that "references in the search warrant affidavit to the controlled buy should have
been excised," contending that, at the Franks hearing, he had "established the presence of
other residences near his residence that were accessible to the informant." Br. of
Appellant at 13, 15. Yet he has not assigned error to the trial court's finding at the
conclusion of the Franks hearing that he failed to demonstrate a reckless
misrepresentation or omission, RP at 109, nor does he cite authority or provide argument
that the evidence was insufficient to support that finding. Cf Taylor, 74 Wn. App. at117 -18 (under a Franks analysis, the court first determines whether a misrepresentation
or omission was deliberate or reckless; if that showing is not made "it is unnecessary to
determine whether [the misrepresentation or omission] was material"). We will not
consider the argument further. See RAP 10.3(a)(6), 10.3(g).
12
No. 32291-2-II1
State v. Lemmon
underlying circumstances of the crime observed" may provide intrinsic indicia of the
infonnant's reliability sufficient to satisfy both Aguilar/Spinelli prongs. State v.
Northness, 20 Wn. App. 551, 557, 582 P.2d 546 (1978).
The State does not contend that the infonnant in this case was a citizen infonnant
nor does it contend that the infonnant's description of what he or she observed suffices to
satisfy both Aguilar/Spinelli prongs. It relies instead on four types of evidence that are
recognized by Washington cases as either supporting an informant's reliability or, in the
case of the fourth type of evidence, substituting for the veracity prong: (1) the controlled
character of a buy at the premises to be searched, (2) the informant's track record, (3) the
fact that the infonnant participated in the controlled buy in hopes of receiving favorable
treatment, and (4) law enforcement's corroboration giving substance and verity to the
infonnant's report of criminal activity.
A. Controlled buy
A controlled buy, if properly executed, is one way to "provide the facts and
circumstances necessary to satisfy both prongs of the [Aguilar/Spinelli} test for probable
cause." State v. Casto, 39 Wn. App. 229, 234, 692 P.2d 890 (1984). "If the infonnant
'goes in empty and comes out full,' his assertion that drugs were available is proven, and
his reliability confirmed." Id.The State concedes on appeal that the controlled buy in this case "was imperfect
because detectives 'couldn't keep a constant visual on the PO all the way down to
13
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
Lemmon's residence.'" Br. ofResp't at 8 (quoting warrant affidavit). While a "properly
executed" controlled buy, without more, satisfies both Aguilar/Spinelli prongs, the fact
that a buy is flawed in execution does not render it irrelevant to reliability.
A properly executed controlled buy requires some level of police surveillance, but
does not require that officers see the actual exchange of marked bills for drugs. In State
v. Lane, 56 Wn. App. 286, 289, 786 P.2d 277 (1989), for example, this court concluded
that a controlled buy was properly executed where officers watched as an informant
entered the main entrance of an apartment building "empty" and came out "full." Id. at
289. The informant told officers that he had gone to a second floor apartment to purchase
the drugs and that a person in that apartment walked downstairs, to a first floor
apartment, to obtain the drugs. A search warrant was issued for both apartments .
Although the officers had not been able to see which apartment the informant entered,
this court still found that the police surveillance, while not constant, "reduc[ ed] the
possibility that the informant obtained the cocaine from a source other than from within
the apartment." Id. at 294. "[T]he search and surveillance conducted in a controlled buy
remove much of the informant's opportunity to fabricate. " Casto, 39 Wn. App. at 235.
Lane is distinguishable in that police could at least see the informant enter the
apartment building, while the informant here was never seen entering any structure. But
the State does not argue on appeal that its imperfect controlled buy satisfied both prongs
of the AgUilar/Spinelli test; it argues only that it was relevant evidence. We agree. The
14
No. 3229l-2-III
State v. Lemmon
many aspects of the buy that were controlled reduced the possibility that the informant
obtained the methamphetamine from a source other than Mr. Lemmon's motor home. It
was relevant evidence of reliability, even if not dispositive evidence.
B. Past history
The warrant affidavit stated that "[t]he PO has provided SOG with information
about narcotic activity, illegal firearms and felony warrants in the past that have led to
several arrests and felony charges in Mason County Superior Court. " CP at 58.
Showing that an informant has a "proven 'track record' of reliability" is the most
common way in which a hearsay informant's credibility is established. State v. Lair, 95
Wn.2d 706, 710, 630 P .2d 427 (1981).
Mr. Lemmon argues that the detective's attestation to the informant's past history
was insufficient because it was not specific as to when the informant had provided
information, the circumstances under which information had been provided, how many
arrests and felony charges had resulted from the past information, or whether the
information resulted in any convictions. Br. of Appellant at 11. He cites State v. Fisher,
96 Wn.2d 962, 639 P.2d 743 (1982) and State v. Taylor, 74 Wn. App. Ill, 872 P.2d 53(1994).
Fisher provides no support for Mr. Lemmon's argument. The warrant affidavit in
that case stated, as to past history, that the informant providing the information "is
reliable in that he or she has given information regarding drug trafficking [sic] and use in
15
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
the past which has proven to be true and correct." Fisher, 96 Wn.2d at 964. In analyzing
the sufficiency of the affidavit to establish reliability, the court examined where, on a
spectrum of specificity, the warrant applicant's description of the informant's history fell.
It observed that "[t]he mere statement that an informant is credible is not sufficient ...
whereas it is almost universally held to be sufficient if information has been given which
has led to arrests and convictions." ld. at 965 (citing I W. LAFAVE, SEARCH AND
SErZURE § 3.3, at 509 (1978)). The court characterized the statement in the affidavit
before it as "l[ying] somewhere between these two positions." ld. It concluded that the
affiant's statement was sufficient, explaining:
While this is more than drawing the conclusion that the informant is
credible and admittedly less than stating the facts as to why the past
information has proven to be "true and correct", it still is a factual
statement-not a conclusion of the affiant. We hold in this case that it is
enough to enable a neutral magistrate to determine if the informant is
credible.
ld. Detective Valley's statement, like the affiant's statement in Fisher, "inform[ed] the
magistrate why the affiant believed the information to be reliable. It states a fact and is
more than a bare assertion or conclusion." ld. at 966.
The second case relied upon by Mr. Lemmon, Taylor, is clearly distinguishable.
The Taylor court did discuss the fact that the informant in that case had a two and one-
half year track record, but in a different context. The court was not addressing a
minimum duration of reliable cooperation required to make an informant's past history
16
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
relevant. Instead, faced with an argument that material misrepresentations and omissions
in a warrant affidavit vitiated the validity of the warrant, the court held that even if the
applicant for the warrant had materially misrepresented or omitted facts, the especially
strong evidence of the informant's demonstrated reliability over the prior two and one-
half years "was sufficient in itself to establish his reliability." Taylor, 74 Wn. App. at
121.
Mr. Lemmon cites no Washington case requiring that factual statements in a
warrant affidavit about an informant's track record include details as to time,
circumstances, number of incidents of cooperation, and conviction outcomes. Notably,
the evidence of past history provided in Taylor, like the evidence here, was of
information leading to arrests, not convictions. And unlike evidence of observed criminal
activity in an application for a warrant, which must be sufficiently current (see, e.g., State
v. Lyons, 174 Wn.2d 354, 360-61,275 P.3d 314 (2012) (addressing possibly stale
information on a marijuana grow operation)), we see no reason why evidence of an
informant's demonstrated reliability must be evidence of the informant's recent
cooperation. Recency, like detail, might go to the weight of the track record evidence,
but not its relevance.
The State does not contend in this case that Detective Valley's statement of the
informant's past history was sufficient in itself to establish reliability; it contends only
that the evidence of past history was factual and relevant. It was.
17
No. 3229l-2-III
State v. Lemmon
C. Participation in hopes ofreceivingfavorable treatment
The warrant affidavit stated that "[t]he PO's ongoing cooperation is motivated by
receiving a favorable recommendation from SOG, on pending charges in Mason County,
in exchange for reliable information that leads to the seizure of controlled substances,
related evidence and successful prosecution of the same." CP at 58-59. "[T]hat an
informant may be trying to win favorable treatment in his own case will usually
strengthen the motivation to tell the truth, because the informant knows his own fate will
be affected by the ability of law enforcement officials to rely on his information." Casto,
39 Wn. App. at 235 n.2 .
The affidavit included a related representation that the informant had made
"numerous statements against his/her penal interest, admitting to having been involved in
the possession, possession with intent to deliver and delivery of methamphetamine." CP
at 59. Because "one who admits criminal activity to a police officer faces possible
prosecution," statements against penal interest generally support an inference of
reliability. Lair, 95 Wn.2d at 7ll.
D. Description ofmatters observed during the buy
The warrant affidavit stated that a detective and animal control officer had
independently corroborated matters the informant described observing during the
controlled buy. As earlier detailed, the informant told detectives that he or she had seen
women smoking heroin in the motor home and described the layout of Mr. Lemmon's
18
No. 32291-2-III
State v. Lemmon
property and the vehicles and a dog the infonnant had seen outside. On August 8, shortly
after the buy, a police detective and animal control officer drove to Mr. Lemmon's
property and "verified the [infonnant's] infonnation." CP at 58. The reasonable
implication of the affidavit is that the detective and animal control officer verified the
informant's description of what he or she observed outside the motor home.
If a warrant affidavit includes information from an informant that fails the 2-prong
test of Aguilar/Spinelli, then police investigation corroborating the infonnant's report of
criminal activity may replace the requirements of Aguilar/Spinelli. State v. Young, 123
Wn.2d 173,195,867 P.2d 593 (1994). Corroboration of an infonnant's report is
significant to the extent that it gives substance and verity to the report that the suspect is
engaged in criminal activity. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 438. But it is significant to only that
extent: "[C]orroboration of public or innocuous facts only shows that the infonner has
some familiarity with the suspect's affairs," and merely supports an inference "that the
informer has some knowledge of the suspect and his activities, not that criminal activity
is occurring." Jd.
Mr. Lemmon characterizes the matters that the infonnant described following the
controlled buy as innocuous facts. It is fair to say that the facts the detective and animal
control officer were able to corroborate were innocuous; there is no suggestion in the
warrant affidavit that the detective and animal control officer corroborated the
infonnant's report of women smoking heroin. The officers' corroboration of the
19
No. 32291-2-III
State v. Lemmon
informant's description of Mr. Lemmon's property did not give substance or verity to the
informant's report that Mr. Lemmon had sold him or her methamphetamine. 4
E. Cumulative support
"A single fact in an affidavit, when viewed in isolation, may not constitute
probable cause but, when read together with other facts stated in the document, the
affidavit [may] satisf[y] the requirement for evidence necessary to establish probable
cause." Vickers, 148 Wn.2d at 110. The facts set forth in Detective Valley's affidavit,
taken as a whole, were sufficient to allow an independent assessment of the informant's
reliability. The trial court properly deferred to the magistrate's discretion in denying the
motion to suppress .
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
In a pro se statement of additional grounds (SAG), Mr. Lemmon raises two.
The first ground is that the trial court would not permit further motions, preventing
Mr. Lemmon from raising the fact that the parcel number identified on the warrant
4 While the corroboration of the informant's description of Mr. Lemmon's
property did not provide support for the reliability of the informant's report that he or she
purchased drugs from Mr. Lemmon, it was arguably relevant to the parties' dispute over
how much to discount evidence of the controlled buy due to the incomplete surveillance.
The fact that the informant reliably described "innocuous facts" about transitory matters,
such as the presence of cars and the dog, was some evidence that he or she was on Mr.
Lemmon's property rather than somewhere else during the times he or she could not be
seen by surveilling officers.
20
No. 32291-2-111
State v. Lemmon
affidavit does not exist. The second-related to the first-is that when he submitted a
motion to this court asking that we take judicial notice of the parcel identification
discrepancy, we placed the notice in his file without action.
Mr. Lemmon filed a motion for judicial notice with our court on June 20, 2013,
asserting that the warrant affidavit described the property to be searched as "Parcel #
2216-20-93013" and asking that we take judicial notice that no such parcel exists.
Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Public Records (June 20, 2013). The clerk of court
responded that there was no provision for him to file the document and placed the motion
in the file without further action. See Letter from David C. Ponzoha, Clerk, Wash. State
Court of Appeals, Div. II, to Warren Lemmon (June 21, 2013).
Mr. Lemmon's statement of his first additional ground for relief provides no
particulars as to when or how the trial court prevented him from raising the alleged
discrepancy, nor does he explain why the alleged discrepancy matters. We will not
consider a SAG "if it does not inform the court of the nature and occurrence of alleged
errors." RAP 10.10(c). In addition, "Only documents that are contained in the record on
review should be ... referred to in the statement." Jd.
His second ground, complaining that we refused to take judicial notice of the
alleged discrepancy and consider it in connection with his appeal, is similarly deficient.
Although ER 201 states that certain facts may be judicially noticed at any stage of a
proceeding, RAP 9.11 restricts appellate consideration of additional evidence on review.
21
No. 32291-2-II1
State v. Lemmon
Mr. Lemmon offers no justification under the RAP 9.11 criteria for his belated argument
that the warrant affidavit mistakenly described the property to be searched.
Moreover, because Mr. Lemmon had court appointed counsel, the clerk properly
refused to take action on the motion. State v. Romero, 95 Wn. App. 323,325-26, 975
P.2d 564 (1999) (defendants represented by appellate counsel may not personally "file
pleadings with and/or request legal advice from clerk of Court of Appeals as it relates to
their appeals.") .
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
22