State v. Storey
2010 R.I. LEXIS 110
| R.I. | 2010Background
- Det. Francesconi obtained a search warrant for Storey’s single-family residence at 52 Wannisett Avenue based on a sworn affidavit alleging cocaine-related activity and the sale of narcotics.
- Affidavit included an anonymous tip about Storey’s cocaine distribution, a trash pull showing cocaine residue and twelve baggies, and mail in Storey’s name linking him to the residence.
- The magistrate issued the warrant on June 20, 2005; police searched the home on June 23, 2005, discovering firearms, cocaine, Ecstasy, marijuana, scales, cash, and other paraphernalia, and Storey and Saleeba were detained.
- Storey moved to suppress the evidence, contending the affidavit lacked probable cause and the description of the search area was too broad; the trial justice denied the motion.
- Storey was convicted of possession of a firearm after a prior violence-related conviction, possession of Ecstasy, and possession of marijuana; on appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court conducted de novo review of legality of the warrant’s probable cause and particularity, deferring to magistrate findings of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause based on totality of circumstances | Storey argues the tip, stale timing, and unrelated arrests negate probable cause. | Storey contends no substantial basis to infer ongoing drug distribution at the residence. | Probable cause established by totality of circumstances. |
| Staleness and freshness of tip | Storey asserts the two-month gap renders the tip stale, unboosted by corroboration. | Storey contends stale information cannot support probable cause even with later corroboration. | Tip refreshed by trash pull; not stale given corroboration and proximity in time. |
| Trash pull corroboration | Trash evidence (cocaine residue and twelve baggies) corroborates the tip and indicates distribution activity. | One baggie and multiple baggies do not necessarily show distribution, and presence of a second occupant could affect inference. | Trash evidence corroborates drug activity and supports probable cause; officer expertise can be credited. |
| Inclusion of non-drug criminal background | Background arrests are relevant to the probable-cause matrix even if not related to drugs. | Non-drug arrests should not be considered for probable cause here. | Non-drug background properly considered within totality of circumstances. |
| Particularity of the place to be searched | Warrant adequately described the premises; broad but tied to entire residence where probable cause exists. | Warrant should specify more precise areas given co-occupant in the home. | Warrant sufficiently particular for the entire premises; valid given probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byrne, 972 A.2d 633 (R.I. 2009) (deference to magistrate; totality-of-circumstances governs probable cause)
- State v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Spaziano, 685 A.2d 1068 (R.I. 1996) (tips can support probable cause if refreshed by current evidence)
- State v. Keohane, 814 A.2d 327 (R.I. 2003) (anonymous tip corroborated by independent investigation can establish probable cause)
- State v. DeLaurier, 533 A.2d 1167 (R.I. 1987) (warrant may describe place to be searched with sufficient particularity despite occupant)
- United States v. Conley, 4 F.3d 1200 (3d Cir. 1993) (prior arrests can contribute to probable-cause assessment)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1987) (particularity is a constitutional requirement guiding warrants)
- United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1985) (reasonableness of warrant scope given probable cause)
- Agurs v. Maryland, 415 Md. 62 (Md. 2010) (expertise of police can inform probable-cause determinations)