State Of Washington, Resp v. Elias Anthony Van Vradenburg, App, 74974-9

Background

On June 22, 2014, witnesses reported an assault with a firearm by a man who drove a silver Nissan Rogue; one witness (Rhonda) said the man was known as "Malakai" or "Eli."
On August 24, 2014, Rhonda pointed out a house; police observed a silver Nissan Rogue registered to the occupant's wife and surveillance showed Elias Van Vradenburg frequently leaving that house in the Rogue.
An identified informant, Shandra (Rhonda's daughter), told police she had ridden with Van Vradenburg multiple times to make narcotics transactions, that he was "always armed" and kept a pistol in the driver s door pocket, and that she had seen two pistols in the home since the assault.
Based on this information, police obtained a search warrant (Sept. 15, 2014), then an addendum (Sept. 22) expanding timeframe and authorizing seizure of the Nissan Rogue; execution revealed suspected narcotics, scales, cash, and baggies, prompting a further addendum and seizures.
Van Vradenburg was charged with possession of a controlled substance and moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause (informant unreliability, lack of nexus to the home, and staleness); the trial court denied the motion and he was convicted at a stipulated bench trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Informant reliability (Aguilar-Spinelli credibility prong)	State: named informant with verified identity, statements against penal interest, and corroboration by other witness make informant reliable	Van Vradenburg: Shandra is a known criminal with pending charges and thus unreliable; tip lacks specificity	Held: Informant was sufficiently reliable (identity verified, statements against interest, details and corroboration) to satisfy probable cause
Basis of knowledge (Aguilar-Spinelli prong)	State: Shandra s personal observations (rode with him, saw guns in home) establish basis of knowledge	Van Vradenburg: tip lacks particularized basis tying him to criminal activity at the residence	Held: Shandra s firsthand observations showed basis of knowledge, so prong met
Nexus between alleged assault/weapon and residence	State: informant saw the pistol in the home since the assault, linking the weapon to the residence	Van Vradenburg: no facts showing evidence of the assault would be at his home; similar to Them where residence not tied to illegal activity	Held: Affidavit provided direct statements linking the gun to the home; nexus satisfied
Staleness/timeliness of warrant	State: informant said defendant "always armed" and had been seen with the gun since the assault, supporting continued possession	Van Vradenburg: over three months elapsed since the assault and no specific recent dates for observations, so information was stale	Held: Magistrate reasonably could find the information timely given the informant's statements about continued possession; warrant not stale

Key Cases Cited

State v. Neth, 165 Wn.2d 177 (2008) (standard of review: magistrate s finding given deference; trial court reviews four corners de novo)
State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91 (2002) (probable cause requires reasonable belief evidence will be found at location)
State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454 (2007) (factors for assessing named informant reliability: identity, statements against penal interest, additional circumstances)
State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432 (1984) (Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test applied under Washington Constitution)
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (informant test: basis of knowledge and veracity)
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) (further development of Aguilar veracity/basis analysis)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (federal totality-of-circumstances test; not adopted for Wash. art. I, § 7)
State v. Them, 138 Wn.2d 133 (1999) (warrant must link suspected activity to place searched; generalized habits insufficient)
State v. Lyons, 174 Wn.2d 354 (2012) (staleness requires magistrate to consider nature/scope of activity and passage of time)
State v. Graham, 130 Wn.2d 711 (1996) (personal observations plus officer experience can support probable cause)