This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A detective interviewed a third-party informant, who confessed to committing burglaries and trading stolen items for drugs at the Defendant's residence. Based on this information, a search warrant was issued, leading to the discovery of drug paraphernalia and other stolen property. A second warrant was then issued, resulting in the seizure of incriminating evidence.
Procedural History
- District Court, Luna County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the searches.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the first search warrant was invalid due to the informant's lack of credibility and the staleness of the information. Claimed that evidence from the second search was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the informant's credibility was sufficiently established and that the information was not stale. Argued that the search warrants were valid and supported by probable cause.
Legal Issues
- Was the informant's credibility adequately established to support the issuance of the first search warrant?
- Was the information in the affidavit supporting the first search warrant stale?
- Should the evidence obtained in the second search be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress.
Reasons
Per Vanzi J. (Sutin and Castillo JJ. concurring):
- Informant's Credibility: The informant was named, which increased reliability, and his statements were against penal interest, further supporting credibility. The informant's firsthand knowledge of the Defendant's activities satisfied the basis of knowledge requirement.
- Staleness: The affidavit described the burglaries as "recent," and the items sought were durable goods likely to remain at the Defendant's residence. The stable nature of the location also supported the finding of probable cause despite the lack of precise timing.
- Probable Cause: The Court emphasized a commonsense reading of the affidavit and upheld the issuing judge's determination of probable cause. The Defendant's arguments regarding ambiguity and lack of corroboration were rejected.