AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the State's appeal of a district court order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant. The affidavit supporting the search warrant was challenged for not providing sufficient information to establish probable cause that narcotics would be found at the Defendant's residence. The affidavit relied on information from a confidential informant (CI) who had observed narcotics at the Defendant's residence at an unspecified time in the past and had seen the Defendant with narcotics within the past thirty days at another location. The affidavit also mentioned observations of the Defendant's activities consistent with drug trafficking but did not establish a direct link to narcotics being present at the Defendant's residence at the time the warrant was issued.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the affidavit and search warrant contained sufficient information to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. The State also filed a motion to supplement the record with the affidavit and search warrant, which were initially missing from the record.
• Defendant-Appellee (Diego Garcia): Successfully moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the search warrant, arguing that the affidavit did not provide a substantial basis to support a finding of probable cause.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through the search warrant due to an insufficient affidavit failing to establish probable cause.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, Judge (with Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals remained unpersuaded by the State's arguments, affirming the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress. The Court noted that a search warrant requires a finding of probable cause and that the affidavit must provide a substantial basis for such a finding. The affidavit in question failed to specify when the CI observed narcotics at the Defendant's residence or whether these observations were more than once, leading to an inability to determine if narcotics were present at the time the warrant was issued. The Court also found the affidavit's reliance on information from a concerned citizen informant (CC) and observations of the Defendant's activities insufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit did not provide timely corroboration of the CI's information, nor did it establish the reliability or basis of knowledge of the CC or the "trustworthy individual" mentioned. The Court concluded that the affidavit failed to support a conclusion that narcotics would be found at the Defendant's residence at the time the warrant was issued and executed, thus affirming the district court's finding of insufficient probable cause.