Opinion
Case No. 20010583-CA.
Filed September 6, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Seventh District, Monticello Department, The Honorable Lyle R. Anderson.
William L. Schultz, Moab, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeffrey T. Colemere, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained after a search pursuant to a warrant because the affidavit supporting the warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. Defendant bases this argument on two grounds: (1) the affidavit did not provide the magistrate with adequate information to assess the credibility of an informant, and (2) the affiant omitted information from the affidavit that would have impacted the informant's credibility.
First, after reviewing the record, including the warrant and supporting affidavit at issue, we conclude the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress because "the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that there were enough facts within the affidavit to find that probable cause existed." State v. Brooks, 849 P.2d 640, 643 (Utah Ct.App. 1993) (quotations and citation omitted). The affidavit detailed the informant's basis of knowledge, the affiant stated that the informant received nothing in exchange for the information provided, and the information provided was based on the informant's personal knowledge. See id. at 644; see also State v. Anderson, 701 P.2d 1099, 1102 (Utah 1985) (stating the detail used to describe the item to be searched or seized bolsters the reliability of an informant's information). Moreover, the affidavit indicates a relationship between the affiant and the informant, and the affiant stated that the informant had demonstrated his truthfulness on prior occasions. See Anderson, 701 P.2d at 1102.
Second, when a defendant claims a warrant issued because it was based on "a misleadingly incomplete affidavit, we consider the affidavit, together with the omitted information, and determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit would support a finding of probable cause if the omitted information had been included." State v. McArthur, 2000 UT App 23,¶ 30, 996 P.2d 555, cert. denied, 9 P.3d 170 (Utah 2000). Here, we conclude that, even assuming the affiant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly omitted material information from the affidavit, had the omitted information been included, it would not have affected the ultimate probable cause determination. Thus, we affirm.
WE CONCUR: Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge, and William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.