State v. Rowan, George
2017 UT 88
| Utah | 2017Background
- A confidential informant (CI) told police that a man known as “Mike” sold bulk, vacuum-sealed marijuana from his home and had firearms; CI previously purchased from Mike.
- Police failed to identify "Mike" by records but arranged a controlled buy in which the CI, after being searched, called Mike, was given money by police, drove (in his own car) to Mike’s house while under visual surveillance, entered, left, and was later found to possess the purchased marijuana upon re-search.
- Based on the CI’s statements and the controlled buy, a magistrate issued a warrant to search the Provo residence of Michael Rowan and Rebecca George; police seized over four pounds of marijuana, psilocybin, cash, firearms, paraphernalia, and buy-owe sheets.
- Defendants moved to suppress under the Fourth Amendment; the district court held the affidavit did not establish probable cause but applied the federal good-faith exception and admitted evidence.
- Defendants then moved under article I, §14 of the Utah Constitution; the district court ruled Utah’s exclusionary rule required suppression and that no state good-faith exception applied; the State appealed.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed on the probable-cause ground, holding the magistrate had a substantial basis to find probable cause and thus did not reach whether Utah’s constitution requires an exclusionary rule or a state good-faith exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit supplied a substantial basis for the magistrate’s probable-cause determination | State: affidavit + controlled buy and corroboration gave magistrate sufficient basis; defer to magistrate | Rowan/George: CI not credible, buy not adequately controlled (no car search), and officer failed to corroborate CI’s claims | Held: Reversed district court; considering affidavit in totality and with deference, magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause |
| Whether courts should apply federal "great deference" standard or a different Utah standard when reviewing magistrate probable-cause findings | State: apply established totality-of-the-circumstances with deference (Gates) | Defendants: urge a more stringent Utah standard (unpreserved) | Court: declined to adopt a different Utah standard (issue unpreserved) and applied deference to magistrate |
| Whether the federal good-faith exception applies under Utah law (state constitutional question) | State: if exclusionary rule exists under Utah Constitution, it should include a good-faith exception | Defendants: Utah Constitution prohibits a good-faith exception; exclusionary rule applies without it | Not reached: Court avoided ruling on existence/scope of Utah exclusionary rule or state good-faith exception because probable cause was sufficient |
| Whether reviewing court improperly read affidavit hypertechnically rather than commonsense totality approach | State: district court erred by hypertechnical reading and insufficient deference | Defendants: district court correctly scrutinized weaknesses in the affidavit and control measures | Held: district court erred; affidavit contained specific underlying facts and indicia of CI reliability and the controlled buy corroborated CI’s information |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 810 P.2d 415 (Utah 1991) (discussing Utah’s state constitutional exclusionary rule)
- State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990) (plurality opinion recognizing an independent state exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (federal good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (warrants and commonsense review of affidavits)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (incorporation of exclusionary rule at federal level)
- State v. Saddler, 104 P.3d 1265 (Utah 2004) (applying Gates framework under Utah law)
- State v. Walker, 267 P.3d 210 (Utah 2011) (discussion of state exclusionary rule precedents and preservation of issues)
- United States v. Artez, 389 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2004) (describing best practices for controlled buys)