AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Officers executed a search warrant at the defendant's residence, finding currency, guns, ammunition, packaged quantities of marijuana, scales, packaging materials, and drug paraphernalia. The warrant was based on an affidavit citing observations of suspicious activity and information from a confidential informant who claimed to have seen the defendant handling a large quantity of marijuana. The defendant was charged with distribution of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Quay County, Donald C. Schutte, District Judge.
• Certiorari Granted, May 3, 2011, No. 32,940.
• Certiorari Quashed, April 13, 2012, No. 32,940.
• Released for Publication May 17, 2011.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the search warrant lacked probable cause because the State failed to establish the veracity of its confidential informant. Contended that the informant's participation in two controlled buys did not establish his credibility and that the affidavit lacked specificity to support the issuance of a warrant (para 4).
• Petitioner-Appellee (State): Asserted that the affidavit provided sufficient information for the issuance of the search warrant, emphasizing the informant's past cooperation with law enforcement and the affiant officer's observations of activity consistent with drug trafficking at the defendant's residence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his residence, specifically questioning the sufficiency of the affidavit to establish probable cause based on the credibility of the confidential informant and the corroboration of the informant's information (paras 1, 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the affidavit did not sufficiently establish the informant's veracity or corroborate the informant's observations to justify the issuance of the search warrant (para 23).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the informant's participation in two controlled purchases and the affiant officer's observations did not sufficiently establish the informant's credibility or corroborate the informant's information to justify the search warrant. The affidavit lacked detailed information about the informant's past reliability and did not provide timely corroboration of the informant's report of the defendant's possession of marijuana. The court emphasized the high level of protection afforded to the privacy of a home under state and federal constitutions, concluding that the magistrate did not have a substantial basis to conclude that the informant was reliable. The court reversed the district court's decision, holding the affidavit insufficient to support a finding of probable cause to issue the warrant (paras 1, 11-23).