Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                         This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 28, 2001
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Cornelia G. Clark                                                                                                                                       petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                                                               Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                        and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                        Cir. Ct. No.   98-CF-177
Appeal No.                                                                              01-0615-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                      IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
RICHARD L. BOROWITZ,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Portage County:
JOHN V. FINN, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Vergeront, P.J., Roggensack and Deininger, JJ.
¶1                                                                                      PER CURIAM.    Richard Borowitz appeals a judgment convicting
him on  charges  of  manufacturing  marijuana,  and  possessing  it  with  intent  to
deliver.   Borowitz entered a no contest plea to the charges after the trial court
denied his motion to suppress much of the State’s evidence against him.   The issue




No.   01-0615-CR
is whether the search warrant application established probable cause to authorize a
search of Borowitz’s residence.   We conclude that it did, and therefore affirm.
¶2                                                                                     The  search  warrant  application  of  Detective  Gary  Koehmstedt
requested authorization to search the Stevens Point home of Borowitz based on
observations made during surveillance of a marijuana patch.   The patch was not on
property Borowitz owned, and was located twelve miles from his home.    The
application reported Koehmstedt’s eighteen years of law enforcement experience,
including three years on a drug task force.    It also reported that during three
months  of  surveillance  someone  removed  or  harvested  eight  of  twenty-seven
plants growing in the patch.
¶3                                                                                     Koehmstedt and another officer were watching the site one morning
when they saw Borowitz walk into the area, put on rubber gloves, open up a large
plastic garbage bag, and begin picking up stems and buds of the marijuana plants
and placing them into the garbage bags.   Koehmstedt stated in the application that
he had seen Borowitz cut the buds and stems off the plants.   After observing this
activity Koehmstedt and the other officer arrested Borowitz.   A pat down search
revealed a pair of cutting shears in a pants pocket.   The affidavit further stated:
[B]ased on … [Koehmstedt’s] training, experience, review
of the records and reports, and investigation in this matter,
that it is probable that a search of [Borowitz’s home]  …
will result in recovery of evidence of  [marijuana-related
crimes]  ….                                                                            [Koehmstedt]  believes  that  based upon  the
numerous investigations  …  [he] has done regarding drug
manufacturing and trafficking, that it is common for drug
manufacturers and traffickers to grow marijuana plants at
one  location  and  then  transfer  the  plants  back  to  their
residence, including their garages and outside sheds, and
process and package the marijuana from their premises.
2




No.   01-0615-CR
¶4                                                                                          After  Koehmstedt  obtained  the  warrant  to  search  Borowitz’s
residence,  police  found  marijuana  and  drug  paraphernalia  on  the  premises,
resulting in this prosecution and subsequent appeal on the suppression issue.
¶5                                                                                          The finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant is a common
sense determination that there exists a fair probability of finding contraband or
evidence of a crime in a particular place.   State v. Ward, 2000 WI 3, ¶23, 231
Wis. 2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517.   It is based on the totality of the circumstances.   Id.
at ¶26.   We accord great deference to the issuing magistrate’s determination, and
the defendant’s burden is to show that the facts are clearly insufficient to support a
probable cause finding.   Id. at ¶21.   When the determination of probable cause is
doubtful  or  marginal,  we  examine  it  in  light  of  a  strong  preference  that  law
enforcement officers conduct searches pursuant to a warrant.  Id. at ¶24.
¶6                                                                                          The  search  warrant  application  provided  a  sufficient  basis  to
authorize  the  search  of  Borowitz’s  home.    From  the  facts  presented  in  the
application, the issuing magistrate could infer the following:                              (1) that someone was
regularly  harvesting  marijuana  from  the  patch;                                         (2)  that  Borowitz  was  the
individual in question; (3) that Borowitz was taking the marijuana somewhere to
process it and store it; and (4) there was a fair probability that the processing and
storing area was located in or about Borowitz’s residence.   The last inference is
reasonable and logical because the magistrate was entitled to rely on assertions in
the application that were based on substantial police experience.    See State v.
Hayes,  196  Wis. 2d  753,  762,  540  N.W.2d  1  (Ct.  App.  1995).    It  was  not
necessary for the application to assert facts directly linking Borowitz’s marijuana
activities to his home.   See Ward, 2000 WI 3 at ¶33.
3




No.   01-0615-CR
¶7                                                                                         Borowitz contends that at the suppression hearing he proved that the
warrant application contained false statements made knowingly or with reckless
disregard  for  the  truth; additionally,  these  false  statements were,  in  his view,
necessary to the finding of probable cause.   Consequently, he contends that the
trial court should have granted his motion to suppress.   See Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S.  154,  155-56  (1978)  (results of search must be suppressed if warrant
application  contains  knowing  and  intentional  or  reckless  misrepresentations
necessary to probable cause finding).
¶8                                                                                         One statement, admittedly false, was Koehmstedt’s assertion that he
witnessed  Borowitz  cutting  the  marijuana  stalks  and  buds.    In  fact,  he  only
observed  Borowitz  picking  them  up  off  the  ground.    However,  there  is  a
reasonable inference that Borowitz cut the  stalks and buds from the fact that
cutting shears were found in his pocket.   Koehmstedt’s misstatement was therefore
immaterial,  whether  or  not  it  was  made  knowingly  and  intentionally or  with
reckless disregard.
¶9                                                                                         The second alleged false statement was Koehmstedt’s representation
that “numerous investigations” led him to conclude that it was common for drug
manufacturers and traffickers to grow marijuana plants at one location and then
transfer them back to their residences for processing and storage.   Borowitz points
to Koehmstedt’s testimony that he could recall only one instance where drugs
grown elsewhere were found at a drug trafficker’s residence.    However, a fair
reading of the testimony is that Koehmstedt could only recall one case by name.
In fact, he testified that he had been involved in other similar cases as well.
Borowitz did not show that Koehmstedt recklessly or knowingly and intentionally
falsified a material statement in the application.
4




No.   01-0615-CR
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.   WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5
(1999-2000).
5

Download 3686.pdf

Wisconsin Law