[¶ 1] TJS, a minor, was found guilty of delivering a controlled substance in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35 — 7—1031(a)(ii) (Lexis-Nexis 2003) and was determined to be a “delinquent child” as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-201(a)(x) (LexisNexis 2003). In this appeal, TJS contends that a search warrant was issued without probable cause and that the district court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search of his residence authorized by the warrant. We affirm.
ISSUE
[¶ 2] TJS states his solitary issue on appeal as:
Whether the officer who issued the search warrant erred as a matter of law because the accompanying affidavit lacked sufficient and adequate probable cause.
FACTS
[¶ 3] A1 Nelson is an officer with the Thermopolis Police Department. On December 3, 2003, he was asked by the chief of police to interview a confidential informant (CI). The CI was a 14 year old minor who allegedly had information concerning marijuana use by several high school students during their school lunch break.
[¶ 4] Officer Nelson and another Ther-mopolis police officer, Jason Converse, interviewed CI on December 3, 2003. The interview was video and audio taped. A parеnt of CI watched and listened to the interview from a location in the dispatch office.
[¶ 5] During the interview, CI advised the officer that he had smoked marijuana on several occasions at the home of TJS, with TJS and other juveniles. The most recent incident occurred on December 2, 2003, the day before the interview. CI described the house, the location of the house, the amount of marijuana, the location of the marijuana, the drug paraphernalia used and the location of the paraphernalia.
[¶ 6] The next day, Officers Nelson and Martinez conducted surveillance of the residence. They located the residence described by CI. The residence was the color described by CI. During their surveillance, at 11:41 a.m., they observed TJS and three other juveniles enter the residence. The juveniles remained in the residence for approximately 15 minutes before leaving in the same vehicle in which they had arrived.
[¶ 7] Later that day, Officer Nelson sought and obtained a search warrant for the premises. He signed an affidavit in support of his request for the warrant. The following day, December 5, 2003, the warrant was executed.
[¶ 8] During the, search of TJS’s home, marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found. A petition to adjudicate TJS delinquent was filed. TJS subsequently filed a motion to suppress claiming that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The motion was denied and the juvenile action рroceeded to hearing. After hearing, TJS was found to have unlawfully delivered marijuana and was adjudicated delinquent based on such finding. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 9] We apply a
de novo
standard of review when evaluating the issuance of a search warrant under Article 1, § 4 of the
Indeed, de novo review is particularly appropriate under these circumstances. The reasons which normally underlie deferring to the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress — its ability to assess the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions at the hearing on the motion — are absent when reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit to support a determination of probable cause. Because art. 1, § 4 requires that all information the issuing officer relied upon to make the determination be included within the affidavit, this court is in essentially the same position as the issuing magistrate.
Cordova v. State,
[¶ 10] An affidavit presented in support of a search warrant is presumed valid.
Page v. State,
DISCUSSION
[¶ 11] TJS contends that the search warrant was erroneously issued. He asserts that the magistrаte lacked probable cause to issue the warrant. His attack on the validity of the warrant focuses upon the sufficiency of the affidavit submitted in support of the request. TJS contends that the issuance of the warrant and subsequent search of his residence violates Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. 2
[¶ 12] In order to properly issue a search warrant, a mаgistrate must have a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists. Cordova, ¶ 12. The test for determining the existence of probable cause is whether the factual situation described in the affidavit is sufficient to cause a reasonably cautious or prudent person to believe that a crime was being committed or that one had been committеd. Id. Additionally, there must be an adequate showing that the fruits of the crime or the evidence thereof are in the area or structure sought to be searched. Id. The affidavit must include sufficient information to enable the issuing officer to make an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. Cordova, ¶ 13. It must include more than bare conclusions of the аffiant. Id.
[¶ 13] If an affidavit contains hearsay from informants, sufficient facts must be presented in the affidavit to allow the judicial officer to “make an independent judgment as to the third party’s credibility, veracity, relia
[¶ 14] The affidavit submitted by Officer Nelson in suppоrt of his search warrant request reads in full as follows:
AFFIDAVIT OF AL NELSON
THE UNDERSIGNED, A1 Nelson, being of lawful age, and being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says:
1. That I am a police officer employed by the Town of Thermopolis, Hot Springs County, Wyoming.
2. That I have reason to believe that at 1225 Canyon Hills Road, Lot # 22, described as a 1981 Medallion 16' x 72' mobile home, VIN# 6513N, Title # 15-0106120, Decal # 145 in Ther-mopolis, Wyoming and more particularly described as Trailer Lot # 22 in a Tract of land located in Lot 2 of Section 2, Township 42 North, Range 95 West, 6th P.M., Hot Springs County, Wyoming, more particularly described as follows: [legal description omitted], Thermopolis, Hot Springs County, Wyoming, owned by [names omitted] and currently occupied by Jayme Don [S], [TJS] and Jeanette [S] there is being conceаled certain property, to wit: controlled substances, illegal drugs, or evidence indicating the illegal distribution and/or use of controlled substances and/or illegal drugs, plus documentation, whether it be written, audio, video or visual pertaining to the distribution and/or use of controlled substances and/or illegal drugs, to include, but not limited to drug paraphernalia, pаckaged materials, containers, photographs, lock boxes and/or other items used to secure, store or use controlled substances and/or illegal drugs, and other evidence of illegal drug use and/or distribution, and/or evidence of ownership or control, which
[ ] is stolen or embezzled in violation of law;
[X] is designed or intended for use, or which is or has been used as the means of committing a сriminal offense;
[X] is possessed, controlled, designed, or intended for use, or which is or has been used in violation of any law;
[X] tends to show a crime has been committed;
[X] tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.
5. [sic] The facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a search warrant are as follows:
On December 3, 2003 Chief of Police Jim Weisbeck informed Thermopolis Police Officer Jason Converse and myself, Thermopolis Police Officer A1 Nelson, that he had a Confidential Informant (hereinafter Cl) a minor 14 years old (DOB 01-09-1989) coming in who had information about some juveniles possibly smoking marijuana during their high school lunch break. At approximately 5:15 p.m. the Cl, [Ojfficer Converse and I met in the interview room. A parent of the Cl was in dispatch watching and listening to the interview, which was being video and audio taped.
Officer Converse asked the Cl to explain to us what he knew and any involvement he had with other high school kids and the smoking of marijuana. The Cl stated substantially as follows:
That it was the Tuesday one week before the Tuesday of Thanksgiving, that he had smoked marijuana with the other juveniles. A minor mаle, [TJS] (08-25-87) had asked him to go along with him and a couple other kids to smoke some pot at [TJS] ’s house. That a red-headed girl named [B] LNU drove him, [TJS], another male named [R] LNU, and a minor female, A.O. (02-07-88) to [TJS] ’s house. When asked if he knew the last names of any of the other kids, the Cl stated “no”. I asked the Cl if [R]’s last name could possibly be [A], and the Cl stated that he, [R], lived off of a street by Chevy Chаse. Upon further questioning the Cl stated they smoked the marijuana in [TJS] ’s room. The Cl stated that the marijuana was located in a grey case under the tv in [TJS] ’s bedroom. The Cl stated there were “2
Through subsequent investigation I was able to learn that the address оf the residence described by the Cl was 1225 Canyon Hills Road # 22. A vehicle outside the residence came back registered to Jamye [S].
On December 4, 2003 at 11:20 a.m., Officer Martinez and I conducted surveillance of the residence located at 1225 Canyon Hills Road, # 22, a blue colored trailer house, located at the southeast corner of the trailer рark, the trailer closest to the cemetery. At 11:39 a.m. I observed a purple Pontiac (WY 15-3753), registered to [SB],[address omitted], Ther-mopolis, Wyoming, pull up to the residence and four youths got out. I recognized the driver of the vehicle as [SB]. I also recognized passengers [MB], [TJS,] and [RA], At approximately 11:41 a.m. all four individuals started into the residence. As the four youths werе entering the trailer, I observed Jayme [S] leave the trailer and get into a brown Chevy Blazer, (WY 15-1699) registered to Jeanette [S], with an address of 1225 Canyon Hills Road, lot #22, Thermopolis, Wyoming, and leave the residence. At approximately 11:52 a.m. I observed the same brown Chevy Blazer come back and park in front of the trailer and Jayme [S] got out and headed into the trailer. At approximately 11:54 a.m., I observed the same 4 youths come out of the trailer, meet and pass Jayme [S] in the yard as Jayme [S] was going back into the trailer, and the four youths got in the purple Pontiac and left. At 12:02 p.m., Jayme [S] came out of the trailer along with an unidentified red headed woman and left in the [b]rown Chevy Blazer.
I later reviewed a report of Thermopolis Police Sergeant Mike Chimenti. In the report [Ojfficer Chimenti stated that at approximately noon on December 4, 2003 he observed a maroon and white convertible, license plate 15-3753 pull into the parking lot of the high school. Officer Chimenti observed 4 males exit the vehicle, [MB], [SB], [RA] and [TJS], and walk across the parking lot toward the high school building. I know Sergeant Chimenti to be the school resource officer for the Thermopolis Police Department who is assigned to the Hot Springs County High School here in Hot Springs County, Wyoming.
M A1 Nelson
Thermopolis Police [Ojfficer
STATE OF WYOMING) )ss.
COUNTY OF HOT SPRINGS)
The above and foregoing Affidavit for Search Warrant was subscribed and sworn to
M District Court Commissioner
[¶ 15] TJS cоntends that the affidavit contains insufficient information from which the issuing officer could make an independent decision concerning the credibility of CI. We disagree.
[¶ 16] The statements of CI related by Officer Nelson in the affidavit are hearsay. However, we have previously recognized that an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on heаrsay where there is “a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.”
McCutcheon v. State,
[¶ 17] We have previously identified several factors that are helpful in assessing the credibility of an informant’s hearsay statements contained in an affidavit. An informant’s first hand knowledge of the events or conduct which he describes enhances his credibility. Urbigkit, ¶ 15.
... even if there is some doubt as to the informant’s motives, his detailed description of criminal activity along with his statement that' the event was observed firsthand, entitles his “tip” to carry greater weight than it might otherwise.
Bonsness v. State,
[¶ 18] Temporal proximity should also be considered. Information contained in the affidavit concerning the time-frame of the informant’s involvement assists the judicial officer in determining whether the items to be seized are likely to be present at the location described in the warrant.
Guerra v. State,
[¶ 19] We have also recognized that an affiant’s corroboration of facts supplied by the informant increases the credibility of an informant. “If an informant is right about some things, he is more likely right about other things.”
Bonsness,
When we analyze the above-referenced factors in the context of this ease, we are satisfied that the affidavit is adequate to support the issuance of the search warrant. The affidavit reflects that Officer Nelson sought a search warrant based upon hearsay information which he obtained from CI. According to the affidavit, CI admitted using marijuana on several occasions at TJS’s residence. The admissions of CI of marijuana use are statements against penal interest. The affidavit reflects Cl’s firsthand knowledge of the criminal activity. He described the criminal activity with particularity. He identified the participants. He provided Officer Nelson with a description and location of the residence and described with specificity the drug paraphernalia utilized and its location in the residence. He described the amount of marijuana still , in the house. All of Cl’s observations were made in close temporal proximity to the date of the interview with Officer Nelson and execution of the search warrant.
[¶ 21] The affidavit reflects that Officer Nelson did not rely solely on the information provided by CI. He corroborated much of the information. He located the residence. He confirmed that TJS lived there. He conducted surveillance the day after his interview with CI. He observed TJS and several other
[¶ 22] We find no error in the decision of the magistrate to issue the warrant and affirm the decision of the district court.
Notes
. Relying on Wyoming precedent, both parties stated the applicable standard of review in this case as
de novo
with deference afforded to the issuing magistrate’s determinаtion of probable cause for issuance of a search warrant.
See Cordova v. State,
. Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.