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

The Defendant was accused of pointing a gun at the victim and firing shots while in the backyard of his home. The victim reported the incident to the police, but the initial investigation found no physical evidence of gunfire. Six weeks later, the victim's father expressed concerns about an ongoing feud between the Defendant and the victim's brother, fearing potential violence. A search warrant was issued, and police seized a gun, ammunition, and other items from the Defendant's home (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, April 12, 2001: The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied. The court ruled that the search warrant was valid, and the information in the affidavit was not stale. The Defendant entered a no-contest plea to receiving stolen property, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling (paras 9-10).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the search warrant was invalid due to the staleness of the information in the affidavit and that the warrant was overly broad in describing the items to be seized (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause, the information was not stale, and the warrant was appropriately specific given the circumstances (paras 9, 32).

Legal Issues

• Was the information in the affidavit supporting the search warrant stale, given the six-week delay between the alleged incident and the issuance of the warrant?
• Was the search warrant overly broad in its description of the items to be seized?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress (para 35).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Pickard J. concurring, Robinson J. dissenting):

• Staleness: The Court held that the six-week delay did not render the information in the affidavit stale. It reasoned that guns, unlike consumable items such as drugs, are durable goods that individuals are likely to retain. The affidavit also included recent information about an ongoing feud, which supported the inference that the Defendant might still possess the gun (paras 19-29).
• Overbreadth: The Court found the warrant sufficiently particular. Although the victim described the gun as "chrome," the warrant's broader language ("any handgun") was justified given the nature of the alleged offense and the need to guide officers in their search (paras 32-34).

Pickard J. (specially concurring):

• Agreed with the majority but emphasized that the additional facts about the ongoing feud were unnecessary to avoid a finding of staleness. Guns are durable goods, and it was reasonable to infer that the Defendant would still possess the gun even without the recent information (para 37).

Robinson J. (dissenting):

• Argued that the affidavit was stale due to the six-week delay and lack of corroborating evidence from the initial investigation. The absence of physical evidence of gunfire and the victim's potential motive to lie undermined the credibility of the affidavit. Robinson J. also found the warrant overly broad, as it authorized the search for "any handgun" despite the victim's specific description of a chrome handgun (paras 38-47).