Can Hearsay Be Enough Proof for a Search Warrant

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Wisconsin

I recently was caught up in a sting operation where while returning from Illinois, the car in which I was a passenger was was pulled over. after a search of the vehicle and all the persons in the vehicle cocaine and paraphanelia were found on everyone but me. a significant amount of marijuana was found in the trunk of the vehicle. The vehicle belonged to the driver and I was in the back seat. The driver and a passenger then proceeded to claim the weed was mine, which I strongly denied. I do have a drug conviction over 6 years ago which I repaid my debt to society, but my question is how can the sherrifs office issue a search warrant of my residence based off of a simple statement from other drug users? and my residence was the only place searched by the police even though I was the only one in the vehicle without drugs of any kind.

So... what did they find at your house?

Quote:

---

Quoting warped71

---

... and my residence was the only place searched by the police even though I was the only one in the vehicle without drugs of any kind.

---

How do you know your home was the only one searched?

Statements as you describe are highly unlikely to form the basis of a search warrant.

IF the officers heard it directly from the passengers, there were drugs at your house, just as an FYI, that is not hearsay.

The only thing the cops found at my house was a couple glass pipes and a broken scale, no drugs or anything of the kind

I have since talked to my co-defendants and they personally told me they never had their homes searched

Noone I was with had no personal knowledge of what would or wouldn't be at my house, so they would have been talkin out their pooper, which I would think would be hearsay

Whether they were talking out of their pooper or not is an issue for trial. Since it's not hearsay, as BOR noted above, it's enough for a judge to issue a warrant upon.

This was not hearsay. A "significant amount" of drugs were found in the car, at least two occupants alleged it was yours. That fact combined with a prior drug conviction is plenty good enough to provide probable cause for a search warrant. It is possible they might have had more, but that would almost certainly have been plenty good enough for a warrant in my state ... apparently it is in WI as well.

Consult legal counsel ASAP and ask him or her about the possibility of a suppression motion. Absent some other error in the process, I suspect that is a long shot, but if it is all you have, then you take it.

Quote:

---

Quoting warped71

---

Noone I was with had no personal knowledge of what would or wouldn't be at my house, so they would have been talkin out their pooper, which I would think would be hearsay

---

Nope. Your buddies said it was yours. Exactly why they believed that might be an issue for a motion to suppress, but their statements are NOT "hearsay."

The significant amount of marijuana found in the trunk now belongs to you. Not only do you have two witnesses to the fact that it was your drugs in the trunk but after the search of your home the police find glass pipes and a scale, doesn't matter if it were broken or not. Oh and you have a prior from six years ago. You need a good lawyer to tear your two witnesses up on the stand.

Good Luck.

What makes you sure it was a sting,searching your car without probable cause is SOP nowadays.Did they all descend on you at once or was it a stop gone bad.

A trunk full of cannabis is not evidence that there would be more at his house.A prior is not evidence either and the two put together does not qualify either.
The supreme court would not buy that. I'm a reasonable person of due diligence and I can't see it.
So unless one of the others turned him over there was not enough to get a warrant.But it won't look good for the other defendants if they promised more at his house and they only found paraphernalia.It seems more exculpatory than anything.There is just no reason to believe that he was the owner of the cannabis.The evidence at his house suggests casual use if anything.

BTW The recent decision by the SC about smelling being probable cause is to stop these crazy searches.Now they have to get a warrant.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

What makes you sure it was a sting,searching your car without probable cause is SOP nowadays.

---

No it is not.

Quote:

---

A trunk full of cannabis is not evidence that there would be more at his house.A prior is not evidence either and the two put together does not qualify either.

---

Depending on what the two witnesses said, yes, it can be. Plus, I can articulate (and have done so before) in an affidavit for a search warrant that when dealing with certain amounts that indicate sales and distribution that there is a strong likelihood that indicia of sales to include pay-owe sheets, packaging materials, or even more of the substance are highly probable at the residence of the person involved.

Clearly you have no experience in writing search warrants or presenting them before a judge.

Quote:

---

The supreme court would not buy that. I'm a reasonable person of due diligence and I can't see it.

---

Since you do not have any experience in this area, I am not surprised you might see it that way.

Quote:

---

But it won't look good for the other defendants if they promised more at his house and they only found paraphernalia.It seems more exculpatory than anything.

---

Hardly.

Quote:

---

There is just no reason to believe that he was the owner of the cannabis.

---

Aside from the statement of the two people in the car, of course.

Whether there is enough to convict him of sales is a question for a jury. But, I would think it safe to say that the amount of dome found is well beyond personal use. And if not for personal use, then the inference will be that it is for sales/distribution.

Quote:

---

The evidence at his house suggests casual use if anything.

---

But, it confirms use - not too bad, over all. At this point, the defense will have to chew up the stories of his friends if he is charged and needs to raise a defense.

Quote:

---

BTW The recent decision by the SC about smelling being probable cause is to stop these crazy searches.Now they have to get a warrant.

---

Huh? Which case are you talking about? In my state plain smell is probable cause ... this is not true in every state, but in most it is.

State vs Tibbles.

Actually I did say that wrong.It does not fit exigent circumstances so they should have taken their PC to a Judge .
But it will slow the amount of searches considerably.

So since I was convicted 6 years ago then I lose my right to be privacy? I don't understand how it cannot be hearsay, since none of the people with me had never been to my house or even knew where I lived, than how can the information they provided without any actual direct knowledge not be considered hearsay?

Besides, it was not my car and the bag of marijuana was found in a bookbag that belonged to one of the passengers, but I guess that doesn't matter.

I kinda had a situation similar. Some one stashed weed in my car and other drugs but they weren't mine. I was with 2 other people who were well known for drugs. I however got the charge for the drugs because it was my car. Shouldnt the owner of the vehicle be charged with the marijuana and not even give a search to the passengers house if he had no drugs on him?

Since neither we nor you are privy to exactly what was presented or told to the judge who issued the warrant, the best you're going to get are educated guesses. But in the big picture, a warrant only requires probable cause, which is a pretty low standard. Beyond that, your attorney will need to get the FULL facts, as presented to the judge at the time, and then decide on what grounds to potentially attack the basis of the warrant.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

State vs Tibbles.

---

Irrelevant. That was a Washington state case, not Wisconsin. Plus, we do not know the cause stated by the police for the original vehicle search and later for the affidavit in support of the warrant ... though odor DOES seem likely to be among them.

Quote:

---

Actually I did say that wrong.It does not fit exigent circumstances so they should have taken their PC to a Judge .
But it will slow the amount of searches considerably.

---

Only in the state of WA and only when based upon the odor of marijuana. I suspect drivers will give their consent when faced with waiting at the roadside for a few hours for a warrant.

Quote:

---

Quoting warped71

---

I don't understand how it cannot be hearsay, since none of the people with me had never been to my house or even knew where I lived, than how can the information they provided without any actual direct knowledge not be considered hearsay?

---

Their statements are direct testimony. It may be false, it may be a lie ... but it was apparently sufficient to convince a judge that probable cause existed to issue a search warrant.

But, the issue is NOT one of hearsay even if there might be other problems with the search.

From NOLO:

hearsay
Testimony given by a witness who is not telling what he or she knows personally, but what others have said.

And,

hearsay rule
A rule of evidence that prohibits the use of out-of-court statements that are offered as proof of the subject of the statement. These statements are not admitted as evidence because person who made the statement isn't in court for the other party to cross-examine. For example, if Cathy, an eyewitness to an accident, later tells Betsy that the pickup ran the light, Betsy would not be allowed to recount Cathy's remarks. Out-of-court statements that aren't offered to prove the truth of the statement are admissible, however. Suppose Tom is called to testify, "On January 1, Bob said the Steelers stink." If the party calling Tom wants to prove that Bob was alive on January 1, Tom's testimony would be admitted, because the other side could question Tom about whether the conversation really took place on that date. Whether the Steelers are a poor team is beside the point. Even statements that are hearsay may be admitted if they fall within one of the many exceptions to the rule. In general, hearsay will be admitted if the circumstances of the statement indicate a high probability that the statement is true. For example, a statement uttered spontaneously and under duress -- such as a victim's remarks immediately following an accident -- could be admitted because the judge might find that the person had little time to plan to say anything other than the truth.

Quote:

---

Besides, it was not my car and the bag of marijuana was found in a bookbag that belonged to one of the passengers, but I guess that doesn't matter.

---

As I said, it is an issue that your attorney can raise for reasonable doubt or for suppression.

Normally the owner of the vehicle is the default owner of any contraband in his car.Constructive possession can be applied to the car owner and can sometimes even be used to prosecute multiple defendants.In this case we have the word of an unreliable witness (the driver who has everything to lose)and a neutral witness(I say neutral but if he has a close relationship with the driver he is also unreliable.)

The person who said (I have to assume they said something more than just "there is more cannabis") it would have to be specific enough to lead them to believe he knew intimate details about your house and about the deal he claims you were doing.

The fact that there were no ledgers or trafficking paraphernalia to suggest that you were dealing it then (depending on what the person said they would find) the person has shown himself to be unreliable.So ,why would I believe him about you being the owner of the cannabis.There are a lot of unknowns here so until you can get a thorough discovery all anyone can do is guess and go through many possible scenarios.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

Normally the owner of the vehicle is the default owner of any contraband in his car.Constructive possession can be applied to the car owner and can sometimes even be used to prosecute multiple defendants.In this case we have the word of an unreliable witness (the driver who has everything to lose)and a neutral witness(I say neutral but if he has a close relationship with the driver he is also unreliable.)

---

As I said, apparently the information at hand was sufficient to overcome this natural doubt and give a judge reason to believe there was probable cause to believe there might be indicia of sales or transportation (or whatever) at the OP's house. You don't have to agree with it, but it happened.

If the police left the information about the owner of the backpack and the car (and they knew it at the time of the affidavit) that is exculpatory and could be sufficient to suppress the warrant.

Of course, the owner of the pack can always claim that yeah, the pack was his, but they stuffed the OP's dope in it. Without knowledge of the statements and the affidavit, who knows?

And, how do you KNOW the witness was "unreliable?" Perhaps he was a shill - an informant? Perhaps he had set other people up? Perhaps the police had obs on the transfer? We do not know. The OP's attorney can find this out.

But, it does NOT take a whole lot to establish the probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant.

Quote:

---

And, how do you KNOW the witness was "unreliable?" Perhaps he was a shill - an informant? Perhaps he had set other people up? Perhaps the police had obs on the transfer? We do not know. The OP's attorney can find this out.

---

Good point,I'll be you could come up with a dozen more possibilities.
Point being don't lose hope,the more complicated the case(and this is a doosey)
the more likely someone made a mistake and a good attorney can pick up on it.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

Good point,I'll be you could come up with a dozen more possibilities.
Point being don't lose hope,the more complicated the case(and this is a doosey)
the more likely someone made a mistake and a good attorney can pick up on it.

---

It really does not seem all that complicated to me ... but then, I do these sorts of things a lot.

It seems to me that you are blessed by a professional dept.
It gets complicated when police are sloppy or overzealous.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

It seems to me that you are blessed by a professional dept.
It gets complicated when police are sloppy or overzealous.

---

Yes, it does. But it is the exception to the rule that officers are sloppy as a result of being overzealous. Typically, the slop comes from poor training or supervision and not solely as a result of enthusiastic zeal. Zeal is great! It's when you allow the zeal to outrun common sense and logical process that you get into trouble. There is no indication that this happened here. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but right now there is no indication that it did.

As already well discussed, it is not hearsay. Your argument is legally worthless.

There are a number of ways to get a search warrant.

For example, something that might apply here, a police officer or two can appear in front of a judge with a confidential informant. The informant will not say anything or testify. The judge will ask the police questions about the reliability of the informant, how the information is known, and some other things. The informant is not even identified in the proceeding. If the judge is satisfied, and they usually are, a search warrant will issue.

If a drug dog hits on your car, that too is probable cause. If the police see something in plain sight, smell illegal drugs, etc. it is all good. If people in the car appear to be under the influence to the trained police officers, that is good too.

You need new friends.

The only thing is to have your attorney attack the warrant, but if the warrant is only about your house, where nothing much was found, it might be pointless. He needs to find some error in the way the car was searched.

Your previous drug conviction can't be used against you in a trial. The state can say you were previously convicted of a crime to try to discredit your testimony, but they can't say what the crime was, unless you are stupid and start talking about it. That opens the door.

Your attorney will know the details of your case and the law better than anyone here. Listen to your attorney. Don't try to play lawyer, you are not equipped.

I don't see anything on the face that suggests that either.I meant that as sort of a general statement.
The OP's use of the word sting leads me to believe there could much more to the story though.Which is why I thought your point about a possible CI made sense.

Alright thank youeveryone for your helpful comments, now I only hope I can get. Enough cash together so I won't get screwed by being appointed a public defender. Thanks all and wish me luck!

Quote:

---

Quoting warped71

---

Alright thank youeveryone for your helpful comments, now I only hope I can get. Enough cash together so I won't get screwed by being appointed a public defender. Thanks all and wish me luck!

---

You better check with the PD to see what they might or might not do, and you better make a decision quick because the window for an appeal is likely pretty short.

http://www.wisspd.org/html/appellate/appellate2.asp