State of Washington v. Jesus Martinez ( 2018 )

FILED
APRIL 12, 2018
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 34929-2-111
Respondent, )
)
V. )
)
JESUS MARTINEZ, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
)
KORSMO, J. - Othello police executed a search warrant and arrested Jesus
Martinez after finding evidence of a methamphetamine distribution operation in Mr.
Martinez's house. A named informant provided probable cause for the search warrant.
Mr. Martinez contends the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence obtained in
the search, and argues that the affidavit for the search warrant did not establish the
informant's basis of knowledge or his veracity. We hold that the search warrant was
supported by probable cause, and affirm.
No. 34929-2-III
State v. Martinez
FACTS
Near midnight on April 26, 2016, Othello Police Officer David Maulen saw what
appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction in a convenience store parking lot.
Officer Maulen questioned a man involved, who stated that he had just bought
methamphetamine from the driver of a silver pickup truck. An officer soon stopped the
departed pickup and arrested the driver, Raul Gonzalez, who unsuccessfully attempted to
hide a baggie of methamphetamine in the gravel after he was detained.
While being transported to the police station, Mr. Gonzalez stated that he wanted
to talk to officers about the incident. He later waived his Miranda rights and admitted to
Officer Maulen that he sold methamphetamine in the parking lot for $7. Mr. Gonzalez
stated that two additional baggies of crystal methamphetamine were hidden in the
pickup's 4x4 gear shift box. According to Mr. Gonzalez, he obtained the
methamphetamine earlier that night from his long-time friend Jesse (Jesus) Martinez, also
known as "Panther." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 27. Mr. Gonzalez described "Panther's"
house as white, with several solar-powered garden lamps and an older red car parked in
the driveway. CP at 55. He stated that Panther lived there with his wife and a teenage
son. Officer Maulen had investigated Panther two months earlier for methamphetamine
delivery and knew that he drove a white Chevrolet Impala. Mr. Gonzalez affirmed that
Panther drove a white Impala.
2
No. 34929-2-111
State v. Martinez
Officer Maulen got a warrant to search Mr. Gonzalez's car and discovered
methamphetamine in the 4x4 gear box and $7 in cash, as predicted by Mr. Gonzalez. A
woman who had been playing pool with Mr. Gonzalez on the evening ofthe incident told
investigators that she believed Mr. Gonzalez left to visit Panther that night. She also
described the solar-powered garden lamps at Panther's house.
On April 27, 2016, Officer Maulen prepared an affidavit for a warrant to search
Mr. Martinez's house. The affidavit included the above details supplied by Mr.
Gonzalez, his female friend, and Officer Maulen. Based on this affidavit, a district court
judge signed the warrant to search Mr. Martinez's house for evidence ofthe crime of
possession ofa controlled substance. The search was conducted the next day, netting
methamphetamine, cocaine, and evidence ofdistribution.
The State charged Mr. Martinez on April 29, 2016 with possession with the intent
to deliver cocaine, possession with the intent to deliver methamphetamine, and second
degree unlawful possession ofa firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained in
the search ofhis house, arguing in part that the affidavit for the warrant lacked probable
cause. In findings offact and conclusions oflaw entered on December 12, 2016, the trial
court found that Mr. Gonzalez was a named informant who made statements against his
penal interest. For these reasons, the trial court concluded that Mr. Gonzalez "had a
heightened reason to be truthful." CP at 28. The court thus concluded that probable
3
No. 34929-2-111
State v. Martinez
cause existed for the search warrant, and denied the motion to suppress. Mr. Gonzalez
was then convicted on stipulated facts of possession with intent to deliver
methamphetamine and second degree unlawful possession of a firearm.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Martinez's sole issue on appeal is that the search warrant was not supported
by probable cause. He contends the search warrant affidavit failed to meet the test for
informant-based probable cause under Aguilar-Spinelli. See 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). We review the trial court's legal conclusion that
probable cause was established de novo. State v. Chamberlin, 161 Wash. 2d 30, 40, 162
P.3d 389 (2007). In so doing, we give great deference to the magistrate's determination
of probable cause, and will not disturb the magistrate's decision to issue a warrant absent
abuse of discretion. State v. Vickers, 148 Wash. 2d 91, 108, 59 P.3d 58 (2002).
An affidavit for probable cause to issue a search warrant must set forth facts
sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect is probably involved in
criminal activity and that officers will find evidence of that criminal activity at the place
to be searched. State v. Ollivier, 161 Wash. App. 307, 316-17, 254 P.3d 883 (2011). The
affidavit is tested in a "commonsense, non-hypertechnical manner." Chamberlin, 161
Wn.2d at 41. When an informant's tip provides the basis for probable cause to search,
4
No. 34929-2-III
State v. Martinez
Washington courts apply the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test, which requires the
affidavit for a search warrant to (1) set forth circumstances underlying the informant's
conclusions, so that the magistrate can evaluate the reliability of the informant's
information (the basis of knowledge prong); and (2) set forth circumstances underlying
the officer's conclusion that the informant is credible and reliable (the veracity prong).
State v. Wolken, 103 Wash. 2d 823, 827, 700 P.2d 319 (1985); Ollivier, 161 Wn. App. at
317.
Mr. Martinez first challenges the informant's basis of knowledge. He contends the
affidavit does not establish that Mr. Gonzalez actually saw controlled substances in Mr.
Martinez's house or that Mr. Gonzalez had skill or training in identifying those
substances.
An informant's personal observations of the facts is sufficient to support the "basis
of knowledge" prong. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d at 827. Here, Mr. Gonzalez told officers that
he was an old friend of Mr. Martinez and had bought methamphetamine from him in the
past. Mr. Gonzalez admitted that he had received the methamphetamine involved in the
$7 sale earlier in the day, while visiting Mr. Martinez "at his home." CP at 55. While
there, Mr. Gonzalez continued, Mr. Martinez pulled half an ounce of methamphetamine
from his pocket and separated out $40-worth to give to Mr. Gonzalez. These facts are
sufficient to establish a reasonable person's conclusion that Mr. Gonzalez had experience
5
No. 34929-2-111
State v. Martinez
identifying methamphetamine and had observed the drug in Mr. Martinez's house. See
Vickers, 148 Wn.2d at 108-09 ("a magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences
from the facts and circumstances set forth in the supporting affidavit").
Mr. Martinez also challenges the informant's veracity. He argues that the affidavit
was deficient because it did not provide any background on Mr. Gonzalez's reputation or
history of providing accurate information to law enforcement, and because it failed to
include Mr. Gonzalez's criminal history, which was quite extensive.
The veracity prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test seeks to evaluate the truthfulness of
the informant. Chamberlin; 161 Wn.2d at 42. Where, as here, the informant does not
have a history of providing information to officers, the informant's reliability may be
established by circumstances that reasonably assure trustworthiness. Id. at 41-42; State v.
Lair, 95 Wash. 2d 706, 710, 630 P.2d 427 (1981). An admission against penal interest is a
factor supporting an informant's reliability, especially when the informant publicly stands
by his information. See Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d at 42.
Here, Mr. Gonzalez made a statement against his penal interest when he admitted
that he obtained methamphetamine from Mr. Martinez and then sold some of it in the
convenience store parking lot for $7. He also accurately predicted that officers would
find more methamphetamine in the gear shift box of his 4x4 vehicle. Mr. Gonzalez
provided accurate descriptions of Mr. Martinez's house. and car, of the items found in the
6
No. 34929-2-111
State v. Martinez
4x4,and of the events leading up to his sale of the methamphetamine. This information
was corroborated by the friends who accompanied him that night and by Officer
Maulen's observations and experience. Altogether,these circumstances support a
reasonable person's conclusion that Mr. Gonzalez was reliable.
Mr. Martinez notes that the affidavit failed to reveal that Mr. Gonzalez had an
extensive criminal history,which Mr. Martinez asserts is evidence that Mr. Gonzales is
not trustworthy. But the superior court rejected this argument because none of the
criminal history involved dishonesty. Furthermore,Mr. Gonzales's criminal history,
along with his admissions against penal interest,were strong motives for him to be
accurate in the information he provided to the officers,especially if he hoped for a
favorable sentencing recommendation. See Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d at 42; State v. Bean,
89 Wn.2d 467,471,572 P.2d 1102 (1978); Ollivier, 161 Wn. App. at 318.
CONCLUSION
The facts contained in Officer Maulen's affidavit in support of a search warrant
were sufficient to support the magistrate's conclusion that the named informant had a
basis of knowledge and was trustworthy,meeting the two-pronged test of Aguilar­
Spinelli. Consequently,the trial court properly concluded that the affidavit supported
probable cause to issue the search warrant.
7
No. 34929-2-III
State v. Martinez
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:
8