Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that a search warrant for the defendant’s home was unsupported by probable cause under Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. The affidavit failed to establish the confidential informant’s credibility, and the electrical-usage records and other investigation did not sufficiently corroborate the alleged marijuana cultivation. The court reversed and granted the defendant’s motions to suppress and dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause under Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the confidential informant's statements were sufficiently reliable under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)'s Aguilar-Spinelli requirements.
- Whether the drive-by, DMV records, and electrical-usage records sufficiently corroborated the informant's allegations of marijuana cultivation.
- Whether the evidence obtained under the invalid warrant had to be suppressed and the possession conviction dismissed.
Holdings
- The affidavit did not establish probable cause to search defendant's home because it did not provide a substantial basis for concluding that the confidential informant was credible or that the informant's allegations were sufficiently corroborated.
- The deputy's drive-by of defendant's residence and DMV records check did not corroborate the informant's allegations because they confirmed only innocent identifying details and revealed no evidence of criminal conduct.
- The electrical-usage records did not corroborate the informant's claim that defendant was cultivating marijuana.
- Because the warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, the evidence obtained in the search had to be suppressed and defendant's conviction had to be dismissed.
Key quotations
“A warrant to enter a person's home must be based upon probable cause; otherwise, the warrant is invalid and any evidence obtained as a result of the ensuing search must be suppressed, even if the police acted in good faith in executing the search warrant.” (5 A.3d at 892)
“For a warrant to be valid, the State's application for the warrant must have provided sufficient information to establish probable cause.” (5 A.3d at 893)
“The corroboration of mere innocent details did not prove that the informant's allegations of drug offenses were reliable.” (5 A.3d at 895)
“Without any information to put the power records into context, the bare recitation of an increase in power usage cannot corroborate the CI's claim of a marijuana growing operation.” (5 A.3d at 896)
Factual background
A confidential informant told a deputy sheriff that Earl McManis was growing marijuana in his home, based on the informant's alleged purchase of marijuana from McManis and observations by the informant and the informant's friends. The deputy obtained McManis's electrical records through an inquest subpoena and relied on those records, along with a drive-by and a Department of Motor Vehicles records check, in seeking a search warrant. The warrant issued, and the search revealed marijuana plants and drug paraphernalia; the jury acquitted McManis of cultivation but convicted him of possession.
Procedural history
A trial court issued a search warrant based on a confidential informant's statements and electrical-usage records. The resulting search uncovered marijuana plants and drug paraphernalia. After the jury convicted defendant of possession, the trial court denied his motion to suppress and dismiss. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause and directing that the suppression and dismissal motions be granted.
Remand instructions
The trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss is reversed, and the motions are granted.