Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed an order suppressing evidence seized from the defendant's home under a search warrant. The court held that information linking methamphetamine manufacturing to the home was stale and therefore insufficient to establish probable cause, and that the good-faith exception did not apply because the affidavit was effectively bare bones as to current criminal activity at that location. Justice Coats dissented, arguing that the affidavit established ongoing drug-manufacturing activity and that the warrant was supported by probable cause or, alternatively, objectively reasonable reliance.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of criminal activity was located at Miller's home when the warrant was sought.
- Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied despite the warrant's lack of probable cause.
- Whether the prosecution could rely on information outside the four corners of the affidavit to establish objective good-faith reliance.
Holdings
- The warrant lacked probable cause because the information connecting methamphetamine manufacturing or contraband to Miller's home was stale when police applied for the warrant.
- The good-faith exception did not apply because the affidavit was so lacking in current information linking criminal activity to Miller's home that no reasonable police officer could have relied on it.
- The court could not supplement the warrant application with information omitted from the affidavit or contained in an affidavit for a different search.
Key quotations
“The warrant must establish probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of criminal activity is located in the place to be searched at the time of the warrant application, not merely some time in the past.” (1112)
“To determine whether probable cause exists, we examine the totality of the circumstances.” (1113)
“There are four circumstances under which an officer may not reasonably rely on a warrant” (1114)
“The affidavit in this case is a "bare bones" affidavit regarding the existence of the crucial link between the place to be searched and current information of criminal activity or the presence of contraband there.” (1116)
Factual background
An anonymous informant reported that on December 9, 2002, Miller had manufactured methamphetamine at his home and kept manufacturing supplies under his kitchen cabinets. Police obtained and executed a warrant for the home on January 6, 2003, nearly a month after that observation, and seized evidence of a methamphetamine laboratory. Although the affidavit contained more recent information that Miller was manufacturing methamphetamine at another location, it contained no information more current than December 9 connecting current manufacturing or contraband to Miller's home.
Procedural history
Police obtained and executed a search warrant for Miller's home on January 6, 2003, discovering a methamphetamine laboratory. The district court found that the warrant lacked probable cause because the information connecting current criminal activity to Miller's home was stale, and further found that the police could not reasonably rely on the warrant under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The district court suppressed the evidence, and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.