Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                        DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                             Respondent,                         No.  40983-6-II

       v.                                                  UNPUBLISHED OPINION

JACK DOUGLAS BOOKER,
                             Appellant.

       Van Deren, J.  --  A jury entered verdicts finding Jack Booker guilty of possession of a 

controlled substance (methamphetamine), contrary to RCW 69.50.4013(1), and bail jumping, 

contrary to RCW 9A.76.170(1) and (3)(c).  Booker appeals his possession conviction, asserting 

that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search 

warrant that Booker argues was unlawful.  Booker contends that the affidavit of probable cause 

supporting the search warrant did not establish the credibility of an unnamed confidential 

informant (CI).  Because the affidavit in support of the search warrant sufficiently established the 

unnamed CI's credibility, the trial court did not err in denying Booker's motion to suppress 

evidence seized at his residence.  Accordingly, we affirm.

                                            FACTS

       On June 18, 2009, Clark County Deputy Sheriff Peter Muller applied for a warrant to  

No. 40983-6-II

search Booker's residence located in Vancouver, Washington, for evidence relating to the crime 

of methamphetamine possession with intent to deliver.  Muller's affidavit in support of a warrant 

to search Booker's residence stated in part:

       FACTORS ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE:
              . . . [I] ha[ve]   learned methamphetamine was being possessed and 
       consumed from within [Booker's] residence. . . . This information was obtained 
       from [a CI] who is cooperating with law enforcement for a positive 
       recommendation on a pending criminal charge.
              I am aware that this [CI] has a criminal history which includes felony 
       assault, forgery, and possession of a controlled substance.  He/she also has 
       convictions for misdemeanor assault, criminal impersonation, and misdemeanor 
       driving offenses.
              [I am] aware that this [CI] has an extensive knowledge of 
       methamphetamine and used methamphetamine in the past.  This [CI] is familiar 
       with how methamphetamine is packaged for sale and how it is consumed.  This 
       [CI] has positively identified methamphetamine.  This same [CI] has conducted 
       eight controlled buys of methamphetamine and provided information which led to 
       the execution of four search warrants and the arrests of seven persons.
              . . . [I] was contacted by the same [CI] who related he/she was familiar 
       with a person who is in possession, consuming, and distributing methamphetamine 
       from within a residence in Clark County.  The [CI] further pointed out the 
       aforementioned residence as the residence of . . . Booker.
              The [CI] was also shown a Clark County booking photo of . . . Booker 
       (d.o.b. 06-16-1958).  The [CI], who has personally known . . . Booker for at least 
       one year, immediately identified the person on the photograph as . . . Booker.
              The [CI] stated he/she has been inside . . .  Booker's residence within the 
       past 72 hours and observed . . . Booker with a quantity of methamphetamine in his 
       possession concealed on his body.  The methamphetamine was described by the 
       [CI] as being contained in a plastic baggy.  The [CI] also stated he/she has 
       observed many glass methamphetamine pipes in many rooms throughout the 
       residence and out buildings on the property.  The [CI] has observed . . . Booker 
       . . . conceal methamphetamine and methamphetamine pipes in places throughout 
       the residence and out buildings to conceal its discovery from law enforcement 
       officials.
              The [CI] informed me he/she has been an invited guest over  at  . . . 
       Booker's residence in excess of thirty times and is familiar with  . . . Booker's 
       involvement with methamphetamines and stolen property.  The [CI] stated every 
       time he/she has been inside Booker's residence he/she has observed 
       methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in . . . Booker's possession.  The [CI] 
       stated . . . Booker will often conceal methamphetamines on his person and 
       else[]where in his residence and out buildings.

                                               2 

No. 40983-6-II

              The [CI] stated . . . Booker often takes stolen property for exchange of 
       methamphetamines.  The [CI] stated some of the stolen property includes but is 
       not limited to stolen vehicle parts, electronics, firearms, construction equipment, 
       and power tools to name a few.
              I conducted a warrants check on . . . Booker and learned he has no current 
       warrants for his arrest.  . . . Booker is listed a convicted felon.  . . . Booker's 
       current Washington State identification card shows him residing at 5810 NE 94th 
       [A]ve.[,] Vancouver, WA. 
              . . .      Booker was cited and released for driving while 
       suspended/revoked -- 3rd on 05-22-09 by a Clark County Deputy Sheriff on patrol.  
       During that contact, [B]ooker told the deputy that he is living at 5810 NE 94th 
       [A]ve.[,] Vancouver, WA. (case # S09-7179).
              I conducted a criminal history of . . . Booker and learned that he has been 
       convicted of a felony for possession of a controlled substance without a 
       prescription.  . . . Booker has also been convicted of two Gross Misdemeanor 
       crimes (D.U.I.I. and Deposit of unwholesome substance) and two Misdemeanor 
       traffic offenses.
              Based on the foregoing, I believe there is probable cause for the issuance of 
       a Search Warrant authorizing a search of the aforedescribed residence, persons, 
       and for the above-described person and items and if any are found authorizing the 
       seizure of same.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 14-15.

       A Clark County district court judge authorized a search warrant based on Muller's 

affidavit.  Law enforcement officers conducted a search of Booker's residence on June 24.  

Officers found a pill bottle containing methamphetamine on a shelf in the master bedroom.  

Officers also found glass pipes with methamphetamine residue and a digital scale in a shed on the 

property.  

       The State charged Booker with unlawful possession of methamphetamine.1 Booker 

moved to suppress the evidence seized on his property, arguing that the search warrant affidavit 

1 The State also charged Booker with bail jumping for failing to appear at a readiness hearing.  
The jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge.  Booker does not appeal that conviction.  
Additionally, the State charged Booker with second degree unlawful possession of a firearm and 
second degree possession of stolen property, but the trial court dismissed those charges before 
trial.  

                                               3 

No. 40983-6-II

failed to establish the credibility of the unnamed CI.  Following a CrR 3.6 suppression hearing, the 

trial court denied Booker's motion to suppress the evidence and a jury trial began on June 28.  

The jury entered a verdict finding Booker guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.  

Booker timely appeals this conviction.  

                                          ANALYSIS

       Booker contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence 

seized at his residence because the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to demonstrate 

the CI's veracity and, thus, did not establish probable cause.  We disagree.

       The warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 

I, section 7 of our state constitution require that a trial court issue a search warrant on a 

determination of probable cause.  State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91, 108, 59 P.3d 58 (2002).  

Probable cause exists where the search warrant affidavit sets forth "facts and circumstances 

sufficient to establish a reasonable inference that the defendant is involved in criminal activity and 

that evidence of the criminal activity can be found at the place to be searched."  State v. Maddox, 

152 Wn.2d 499, 505, 98 P.3d 1199 (2004).

       Two different standards apply to our review of a probable cause determination.  State v. 

Emery, 161 Wn. App. 172, 201, 253 P.3d 413, petition for review granted, 172 Wn.2d 1012

(2011).  The first standard applies to "'historical facts'" in the case, i.e., the events "'leading up to 

the stop or search.'"  In re Det. of Petersen, 145 Wn.2d 789, 799-800, 42 P.3d 952 (2002) 

(quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 

(1996)).  We apply an abuse of discretion standard to our review of a trial court or magistrate's 

finding that information from an unnamed informant is sufficiently reliable and credible to qualify 

                                               4 

No. 40983-6-II

as historical fact.  Emery, 161 Wn. App. at 201-202.  And we review de novo the legal conclusion 

that "'the qualifying information as a whole amounts to probable cause.'"  Emery, 161 Wn. App. 

at 202 (quoting Petersen, 145 Wn.2d at 800).

       To determine a search warrant's validity, we follow the two-prong test derived from 

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United 

States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969).  State v. Fisher, 96 Wn.2d 962, 

965, 639 P.2d 743 (1982).  For a law enforcement officer to secure a search warrant based on an 

informant's tip, the officer must demonstrate the informant's (1) veracity; and (2) basis of 

knowledge.  State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 443, 688 P.2d 136 (1984).  Booker challenges 

only the veracity prong and, thus, we need not address the basis of knowledge prong of the 

Aguilar-Spinelli test. 

       Where, as here, a search warrant affidavit relies on information provided by an unnamed 

informant, the informant's veracity may be established if "the facts and circumstances under which 

the information was furnished . . . reasonably support an inference that the informant is telling the 

truth."  State v. Lair, 95 Wn.2d 706, 710, 630 P.2d 427 (1981).  "The most frequent way in 

which a hearsay informant's credibility is established is by showing that the informant has 

previously supplied accurate, helpful information to law enforcement authorities."  Lair, 95 

Wn.2d at 710.  In determining whether a search warrant affidavit adequately demonstrates an 

informant's veracity, "it is almost universally held to be sufficient if [the informant previously 

provided information that] has led to arrests and convictions."  Fisher, 96 Wn.2d at 965.

       The search warrant affidavit here states that the CI "has conducted eight controlled buys 

of methamphetamine and provided information which led to the execution of four search warrants 

                                               5 

No. 40983-6-II

and the arrests of seven persons." CP at 14.  Booker argues that this statement is insufficient to 

establish the CI's veracity because it does not indicate "that the [CI's] information proved 

accurate once the search warrants were executed." Br. of Appellant at 10.

       Contrary to Booker's argument, the factual assertion that the CI has provided information 

leading to multiple arrests in the affidavit in support of the issuance of a search warrant creates a 

reasonable inference that the CI "has previously supplied accurate, helpful information to law 

enforcement authorities."  Lair, 95 Wn.2d at 710.  Thus, the affidavit provided the issuing 

magistrate sufficient information to conclude that the CI was a reliable source of information and 

established probable cause sufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant.  Accordingly, 

the trial court did not err when it denied Booker's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to 

the search warrant, and we affirm his conviction.

       A majorityofthe panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so 

ordered.

                                                 Van Deren, J.
We concur:

Worswick, A.C.J.

Quinn-Brintnall, J.

                                               6