State v. Stuart Cleland
162 A.3d 672
| Vt. | 2016Background
- Police investigated a suspected clandestine methamphetamine operation at a Windmill Point Road trailer in Alburgh, VT, in May–June 2013.
- A VSP detective obtained a search warrant after an affidavit describing PSE purchases, informant tips, surveillance, and interviews with the defendant and third parties.
- Affidavit facts: multiple purchases of pseudoephedrine (PSE) by defendant and partner; confidential informant tips linking defendant to meth activity; surveillance showing defendant leaving the trailer; defendant’s statements to police admitting meth use and obtaining/selling meth; witnesses ("Shorty" and a girlfriend of an associate) who described defendant’s ability to manufacture and possession of meth-like substances in the trailer.
- Police executed the warrant June 10, 2013; evidence led to charges including manufacturing methamphetamine and child endangerment (conspiracy later dismissed).
- Defendant moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit failed to establish probable cause linking the crime to the residence and that hearsay in the affidavit was unreliable and lacked a factual basis; the trial court denied the motion. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea reserving this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cleland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit established probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found at the specified residence | Affidavit, taken as a whole, supplied ample facts (PSE purchases, interviews, surveillance, witness statements) to support a magistrate’s finding | Affidavit lacked sufficient nexus between alleged criminal activity and the Windmill Point Road residence | Held: Yes; totality of circumstances supported finding that evidence would be at the residence |
| Whether hearsay informants were inherently credible or reliable on this occasion | Some informants had corroboration or history of reliability; other non-hearsay and first-hand statements bolstered probable cause | Informants’ credibility assertions were too vague; corroboration was minimal and did not show criminal activity at residence | Held: Credibility satisfied by combination of corroborated informant info, prior reliability, statements against penal interest, and other independent evidence |
| Whether the affidavit supplied a factual basis for the informants’ information (basis of knowledge) | Several informants (Shorty, girlfriend) provided first-hand information; others were corroborated by surveillance and records (PSE purchases) | Informants did not show firsthand observation of manufacturing; factual basis insufficient for linking manufacturing to residence | Held: Factual-basis prong met as some informants gave first-hand information and combined facts permitted magistrate to infer evidence of crime at location (at minimum illegal PSE possession) |
| Whether suppression is required despite any deficiencies in hearsay portions | Even if some hearsay was unreliable, reliable parts and non-hearsay facts provided substantial evidence for probable cause | Hearsay deficiencies required suppression because affidavit relied on unreliable tips for location link | Held: No suppression; reliable portions of affidavit plus corroborating non-hearsay supported issuance of warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chaplin, 191 Vt. 583 (2012) (standard of review for appellate review of magistrate probable-cause findings)
- State v. Robinson, 185 Vt. 232 (2009) (probable cause requires reasonable conclusion crime committed and evidence located at place to be searched)
- State v. Zele, 168 Vt. 154 (1998) (examine totality of circumstances; common-sense review of affidavits)
- State v. Arrington, 188 Vt. 460 (2010) (Aguilar/Spinelli two-part test: credibility and basis-of-knowledge for hearsay informants)
- State v. Goldberg, 178 Vt. 96 (2005) (factors establishing informant credibility and factual basis)
- State v. Melchior, 172 Vt. 248 (2001) (probable cause standard for nexus between place and evidence does not require more-likely-than-not showing)
- State v. Betts, 194 Vt. 212 (2013) (limitations where vague prior-reliability assertions do not permit independent assessment)
- United States v. Gaviria, 805 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir. 1986) (probable cause deals with probabilities, not certainties)