Jerry McIntosh II v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/01/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-09-0579 J e r r y McIntosh I I v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, The from Lamar C i r c u i t (CC-09-175) Court Judge. appellant, J e r r y McIntosh I I , pleaded guilty t o one count of u n l a w f u l possession o f a methamphetamine, a v i o l a t i o n of 1975. § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 2 , A l a . Code The t r i a l court sentenced McIntosh t o a term o f 10 y e a r s ' imprisonment; the t r i a l court CR-09-0579 split the sentence imprisonment trial court pursuant seq., to followed ordered McIntosh by ordered McIntosh the Drug Demand to the F o r e n s i c suppress pleading evidence the ground was i s s u e d was the affidavit based that the Specifically, following Ivan Bryant of Force and, 13A-12-280 an et assessment a costs. motion the search McIntosh to warrant argued that i s s u e d was thus, d i d not not establish the Circuit Lowndes October County, told Deputy at 31, 2007, Mississippi, 1 to i n f o r m him Bryant that Drug his home in of that McIntosh Vernon, of the counties i n c l u d e d i n the 2 court Michael Shackelford Task F o r c e methamphetamine L a m a r C o u n t y i s one Judicial Circuit. On Claude Drug i n f o r m a n t had manufacturing to suppress, the t r i a l evidence. telephoned O f f i c e r 24th J u d i c i a l 1 which u p o n w h i c h t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was the a confidential was assessment court filed The s e a r c h o f h i s r e s i d e n c e on upon information months' cause. considered Task § f u n d , and the affidavit deficient. a $1,000 McIntosh from 15 probation. S c i e n c e T r u s t Fund, A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n Deputy serve Reduction Act, guilty, seized upon " f r e s h " probable the t o pay the crime v i c t i m s ' compensation Before to 5 years' supervised also to $100 and 24th CR-09-0579 Alabama. that had a barn on a informant Styrofoam McIntosh's that confidential receiving he had following search warrant telephone affidavit that Deputy B r y a n t r e c e i v e d the Officer i n support of Deputy Bryant a camper McIntosh told also Officer i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e p r e c e d i n g 24 call, of McIntosh's told underneath p r o p e r t y and informant within this had cooler methamphetamine i n h i s house. Shackelford the confidential McIntosh behind had The hours. the After Shackelford prepared his application for a property: "Your affiant, as an Agent with the 24th Judicial Drug and V i o l e n c e C r i m e T a s k F o r c e and h a v i n g s e r v e d i n t h a t c a p a c i t y f o r a t o t a l o f one y e a r , does hereby r e q u e s t i s s u a n c e of a r e s i d e n t i a l search warrant. Prior to serving w i t h the 24th J u d i c i a l Drug and V i o l e n c e C r i m e T a s k F o r c e I s e r v e d as C h i e f o f P o l i c e i n t h e C i t y o f S u l l i g e n t , A l a b a m a f o r two y e a r s a n d a s a p o l i c e o f f i c e r f o r t h e C i t y of Sulligent f o r 9 y e a r s . I have numerous drug arrests and convictions i n my c a r e e r as a law enforcement officer. "On 10-31-07 I r e c e i v e d a c a l l from Lowndes County narcotic Officer Ivan Bryant of a Jerry McIntosh manufacturing Methamphetamines at his r e s i d e n c e and i n a b a r n and camper b e h i n d h i s house in Vernon Alabama. The i n f o r m a t i o n came f r o m a c r e d i b l e c o n f i d e n t i a l p a i d i n f o r m a n t who h a s [ g i v e n ] credible i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e p a s t a n d [ h a s ] made numerous arrests with [sic]. [The confidential informant] advised that Jerry McIntosh and a guy named R o b e r t h a s a S t y r o f o a m c o o l e r u n d e r n e a t h a camper b e h i n d t h e b a r n and t h a t J e r r y M c I n t o s h has 3 CR-09-0579 Methamphetamines i n h i s r e s i d e n c e . i s f r e s h w i t h i n t h e l a s t 24 h o u r s . The information " A l s o , I have r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n from c r e d i b l e sources i n the past t h a t J e r r y McIntosh i s i n v o l v e d w i t h the manufacture of Methamphetamines. " F u r t h e r m o r e , b a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h my i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , I b e l i e v e there to be s t o r e d at [ a s p e c i f i c a d d r e s s ] i n Vernon, Alabama and being d e s c r i b e d as a s i n g l e s t o r y t a n b r i c k house a q u a n t i t y of Methamphetamines, o t h e r illegal narcotics, drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a , and chemicals and components used in the manufacture of Methamphetamines." (Supp. C. 2.) executed which the with other warrant recovered the on October members on 31, of law McIntosh's narcotics 2007 , Officer enforcement residence underlying during McIntosh's conviction. Officer the p.m. search they guilty-plea 10:20 along Shackelford At Shackelford d r u g t a s k f o r c e had testified that other officers h e a r d t h a t M c I n t o s h was methamphetamine at h i s r e s i d e n c e , but learned that talking Officer Shackelford information also before testified he manufacturing e x p l a i n e d t h a t he with that he Deputy had Deputy Bryant on n u m e r o u s n a r c o t i c s c a s e s i n t h e Deputy Bryant had told Officer Shackelford 4 within Bryant. worked area t h a t the had and with that informant CR-09-0579 f r o m whom he r e c e i v e d the information regarding McIntosh was reliable. On could cross-examination, not r e c a l l "freshness" of confidential Officer an specifically the Shackelford Shackelford asking information informant; independent Officer explained recollection on about the from the immediately Officer last after Shakelford 24 although discussing he d i d n o t h a v e the "freshness" information i s fresh been recorded conversation with Deputy Bryant. his testified regarding narcotics being period." examination, have for narcotics time the hours"--would residence "fresh received re-direct issue, the entry i n the a f f i d a v i t - - " [ t ] h e within he had that, of that Deputy Bryant he however, said that unless he present (R. he would not had r e c e i v e d a information at the residence 34.) search Additionally, within a Officer S h a c k e l f o r d e x p l a i n e d t h a t he b e g a n w o r k i n g on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n for the search warrant call from Deputy Bryant. not know knowledge when as s o o n Nevertheless, the c o n f i d e n t i a l regarding a s he r e c e i v e d McIntosh's 5 the telephone Officer Shackelford d i d informant involvement had acquired the with narcotics. CR-09-0579 Officer magistrate included who could issued i n the a s k e d any the Shackelford the application He regarding for the recall search affidavit. questions not warrant also the discussing with could not affidavit search any warrant issue remember when he to the not being submitted the issuing magistrate. T.R., the information testified October regarding at the 31, overheard a dope." (R. camper and they but had for drugs she and he 44.) T.R. telephoned over needed Deputy to Junior, man (R. 44.) the Bryant had Deputy T.R. about explained and a cooler T.R. also to one to cook behind indicated actually testified house. According as as soon and men, "wanting and on that manufacture the n a r c o t i c , named J u n i o r 6 that residence two the also t h a t t h e y went o u t s i d e to residence. provided Bryant, McIntosh's McIntosh needed to the inside to between explained they who hearing. McIntosh pointed [McIntosh]." while went another everything that McIntosh conversation Robert informant suppression 2007, named a confidential she to left "cook i t to T.R. seeing she McIntosh's CR-09-0579 After hearing arguments regarding the freshness affidavit i n support denied Mcintosh's from the State of the search warrant, motion to suppress. McIntosh whether the t r i a l court On a p p e a l , M c I n t o s h in denying contends h i s motion that then argues the that the t r i a l to suppress. deficient court erred Specifically, on the ground that that unreasonable search warrants probable cause. the Alabama to the United searches shall be States and s e i z u r e s , issued I n Ex p a r t e G r e e n , informant Bryant. Constitution and i t p r o v i d e s o n l y upon a finding of 15 S o . 3 d 489 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : " T h u s , ' [ a ] s e a r c h w a r r a n t may o n l y b e i s s u e d upon a showing o f p r o b a b l e cause t h a t e v i d e n c e o r i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s o f a c r i m e o r c o n t r a b a n d w i l l be f o u n d i n t h e p l a c e t o be s e a r c h e d . ' United States v. G e t t e l , 474 F . 3 d 10 81 , 10 8 6 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) . M o r e o v e r , ' " [ s ] u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e must be s t a t e d i n 7 was i t d i d not t h e i n f o r m a t i o n she r e p o r t e d t o Deputy Amendment McIntosh underlying the search warrant learned prohibits to followed. i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g when t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l Fourth pleaded h i s motion include The court t o a p p e a l as t o had e r r e d by denying the a f f i d a v i t constitutionally i n the the t r i a l b u t he s p e c i f i c a l l y r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t This appeal McIntosh of the information included guilty, suppress. and CR-09-0579 the a f f i d a v i t t o support a f i n d i n g of p r o b a b l e cause for issuing the search warrant," and "[t]he a f f i d a v i t must s t a t e s p e c i f i c f a c t s o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s which support a finding of probable cause[;] o t h e r w i s e t h e a f f i d a v i t i s f a u l t y and t h e w a r r a n t may n o t i s s u e . " ' E x p a r t e P a r k e r , 858 S o . 2 d 9 4 1 , 945 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g A l f o r d v . S t a t e , 381 S o . 2 d 203, 205 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 9 ) ) . "'A p r o b a b l e c a u s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made a f t e r considering the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances.' G e t t e l , 474 F . 3 d a t 1 08 6. To p a s s constitutional muster, ' t h e f a c t s must be s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a c o n c l u s i o n that the p r o p e r t y which i s the object of the search i s probably on t h e p r e m i s e s t o be searched a t the time the warrant i s i s s u e d . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G r e a n y , 929 F . 2 d 5 2 3 , 5 2 4 - 2 5 ( 9 t h C i r . 1991) (emphasis added). Thus, ' [ t ] h e p o l i c e will ... e n c o u n t e r problems of "staleness" of their information i f they delay too long i n seeking a search warrant.' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W a t s o n , 423 U.S. 4 1 1 , 450 n. 14 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . " 15 S o . 3d a t 4 9 2 . In warrant arguing was that the affidavit constitutionally underlying deficient, the McIntosh search relies on Lewis v. State, 589 S o . 2 d 758 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991), and Nelms v. State, 568 S o . 2 d 384 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 990) . In Green, a case that Court in also that i s factually relies addressed support Off[icer] upon Lewis similar and Nelms, t o t h e one a t h a n d a n d the Alabama t h e same q u e s t i o n a n d h e l d t h a t a n of a search Thomas F l a t h m a n warrant that stated, o f t h e Dothan P o l i c e 8 Supreme affidavit i n part, " I am Department and CR-09-0579 I have r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n from a c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a n t J e f f Green i s m a n u f a c t u r i n g and s e l l i n g methamphetamine of t h e r e s i d e n c e and insufficient to that inside i n the shed b e s i d e of the r e s i d e n c e " establish probable cause. The explained: " A l l t h r e e cases c i t e d by Green i n v o l v e d motions to suppress evidence of controlled substances discovered i n the execution of search warrants supported by affidavits lacking information sufficient to determine whether the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t o , a n d b y , t h e a f f i a n t was current. In [Thomas v . S t a t e , 353 So. 2 d 54 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)], h e r o i n was found pursuant to a search w a r r a n t e x e c u t e d on M a r c h 1 4 , 1 9 7 3 . T h o m a s , 353 S o . 2 d a t 5 5 . One o f t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who executed t h e w a r r a n t was the a f f i a n t , who had s t a t e d , i n pertinent part: "'"On F e b r u a r y 2 3 r d , 1973, a search w a r r a n t was s e r v e d a t 2 6 2 4 T e m p e s t D r i v e , A p a r t m e n t H, r e s i d e n c e o f M a r i e H a l e y . A q u a n t i t y o f h e r o i n was s e i z e d o n t h i s d a t e . On t h e a f t e r n o o n o f M a r c h 6 t h , 1 9 7 3 , an undercover police officer purchased a q u a n t i t y o f h e r o i n f r o m E r i c R o g e r s a t 2624 T e m p e s t D r i v e , A p a r t m e n t H. On M a r c h 1 3 t h , 1973, I received information from a reliable informant who has given me i n f o r m a t i o n over a p e r i o d of the l a s t 30 days w h i c h has l e d t o n a r c o t i c c a s e s b e i n g made w i t h t r i a l s p e n d i n g . T h i s i n f o r m a n t g a v e me i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t he h a d observed h e r o i n b e i n g u s e d and s o l d a t 2624 Tempest D r i v e , A p a r t m e n t H, B i r m i n g h a m , A l a b a m a . " ' " 3 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 56 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . I n h o l d i n g t h a t the defendant's motion to suppress the h e r o i n found 9 was Court CR-09-0579 during the s e a r c h s h o u l d have been Court of Criminal Appeals s t a t e d : granted, the "'The a f f i d a v i t i s d e f i c i e n t because it fails t o show t h a t the information r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e i n f o r m a n t was f r e s h a s opposed t o b e i n g remote The affidavit s t a t e d t h a t t h e i n f o r m a n t "had observed" heroin being used and sold from the p r e m i s e s d e s c r i b e d . The a f f i d a v i t d o e s n o t s t a t e the date or the time the informant allegedly observed the heroin on the premises .... " ' "'The f a c t t h a t h e r o i n was p r e v i o u s l y seized on February 23, 1973, at 2624 Tempest Drive, Apartment H, did not e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e cause to b e l i e v e that heroin was on t h e p r e m i s e s t h r e e weeks later. "'Also, the fact that on M a r c h 6, 1973, an undercover police officer purchased a q u a n t i t y of heroin from E r i c R o g e r s on t h e p r e m i s e s d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t a week l a t e r s u c h n a r c o t i c w o u l d be s t i l l f o u n d t h e r e o n . Seven days i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h of time i n w h i c h t o remove h e r o i n from t h e p r e m i s e s or d i s p o s e of i t i n a n o t h e r f a s h i o n . Such makes f o r a s t a l e w a r r a n t . ' "353 So. 2d a t 56 ( e m p h a s i s added). "The search warrant challenged i n Lewis[v. S t a t e , 589 S o . 2 d 758 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , ] was b a s e d on a n a f f i d a v i t t h a t s t a t e d , in pertinent part: '"[W]ithin the last seventy-two hours, a reliable, confidential informant advised this a f f i a n t t h a t s a i d i n f o r m a n t had been a t the above 10 CR-09-0579 described r e s i d e n c e and observed a quantity of p o w d e r c o c a i n e . " ' L e w i s , 589 So. 2 d a t 759 ( e m p h a s i s added). I n r e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f the defendant's motion t o suppress evidence of a c o n t r o l l e d substance found d u r i n g the search, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained that the a f f i d a v i t was c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ' d e f i c i e n t , because i t f a i l [ e d ] t o r e f e r t o t h e d a t e when t h e i n f o r m a n t allegedly observed cocaine a t the [defendant's] r e s i d e n c e . ' 589 So. 2 d a t 759 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " S i m i l a r l y , i n N e l m s [ v . S t a t e , 568 S o . 2 d 384 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) ] a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e was f o u n d i n e x e c u t i n g a s e a r c h w a r r a n t o b t a i n e d on t h e b a s i s o f an a f f i d a v i t t h a t s t a t e d , i n pertinent part: "'"And t h a t t h e f a c t s t e n d i n g t o e s t a b l i s h the f o r e g o i n g grounds f o r issuance of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t a r e as f o l l o w s : That w i t h i n the l a s t seventy-two hours a c o n f i d e n t i a l police informant, who has provided information to the affiant i n the past that led t o an a r r e s t , s t a t e d t o t h e a f f i a n t t h a t t h e y [ s i c ] have seen C r a c k - C o c a i n e i n the r e s i d e n c e o f Tommie L e e N e l m s , a l i a s , l o c a t e d a t 625 W e s t v i e w D r i v e , A u b u r n , L e e County, Alabama."' " N e l m s , 568 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 5 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n In reversing the t r i a l court's denial defendant's motion t o suppress evidence c o n t r o l l e d substance, the Court of Criminal stated: Nelms). of the of the Appeals "'The affidavit i n this case i s [constitutionally] deficient because i t d o e s n o t s t a t e when t h e d r u g s w e r e s e e n b y the informant at the [defendant's] residence. The w o r d s "within the last seventy-two hours" refer t o when t h e informant told this information to the 11 CR-09-0579 a f f i a n t , n o t t o when t h e i n f o r m a n t o b s e r v e d the narcotics in the [defendant's] r e s i d e n c e . T h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d a t e o r t i m e when t h e n a r c o t i c s w e r e observed by the informant. Thus, the affidavit was defective and was i n s u f f i c i e n t to support the issuance of the search warrant i n t h i s case.' "568 So. 2 d a t 386 (emphasis added). " "The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h a s e x p l a i n e d i n regard t o the phrase 'had o b s e r v e d ' that such statements i n a f f i d a v i t s evidencing past actions are ineffective. This i s so, because the a l l e g e d l y i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y ' " c o u l d have been any time i n t h e past."' T h o m a s , 3 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 56 ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r v . S t a t e , 49 A l a . A p p . 7 4 1 , 7 4 3 , 2 7 5 S o . 2 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 5 - 2 6 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 7 3 ) ) . When '"[t]he informer [does] n o t t e l l t h e o f f i c e r - a f f i a n t t h e d a t e o r t i m e he allegedly observed the [activity] on the premises,"' then '"[t]here i s nothing i n the a f f i d a v i t which h i n t s of time except the use of the p a s t t e n s e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s ... r e p o r t t o t h e a f f i a n t . " ' 3 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 56 ( q u o t i n g Walker, 49 A l a . A p p . a t 7 4 3 , 275 So. 2d a t 726)(emphasis added). "Similarly, nothing i n Officer Flathman's a f f i d a v i t r e v e a l s when t h e t i p f r o m t h e i n f o r m a n t was r e c e i v e d o r when the alleged activity was o b s e r v e d . The m o s t t h a t c a n b e g a i n e d f r o m that p o r t i o n o f t h e a f f i d a v i t i s t h a t - - a t some i n d e f i n i t e t i m e i n t h e p a s t - - a n anonymous i n d i v i d u a l a l l e g e d l y l e a r n e d o f a methamphetamine o p e r a t i o n i n v o l v i n g Green a t the address indicated on t h e s e a r c h warrant. Because Officer Flathman's affidavit c o n t a i n e d no c h r o n o l o g i c a l r e f e r e n c e i n w h i c h t o place the informant's alleged observation of the m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e o p e r a t i o n , i t a f f o r d e d no b a s i s on 12 CR-09-0579 which t o determine whether 'the o b j e c t of the search [was] p r o b a b l y o n t h e p r e m i s e s t o b e s e a r c h e d a t t h e time the warrant [was] i s s u e d . ' [United States v . ] G r e a n y , 92 9 F . 2 d [ 5 2 3 ] a t 5 2 5 [ ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) ] . " 15 So. 3d a t 493-94. Here, not the affidavit include a underlying the search r e f e r e n c e t o when observed t h e methamphetamine McIntosh correctly information because i s fresh does informant residence. As out, the statement that the last 24 h o u r s " i s ambiguous within that statement refers "[t]he t o when i n f o r m a n t l e a r n e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o r t o when confidential affidavit the confidential i n Mcintosh's i t i s u n c l e a r whether the c o n f i d e n t i a l the points warrant informant called Deputy i n Green and those mentioned Bryant. therein, Like the the affidavit p r e p a r e d b y O f f i c e r S h a c k e l f o r d " a f f o r d e d no b a s i s o n w h i c h t o determine the whether premises issued.'" apparent sufficient searched the face our at the time 15 S o . 3 d a t 4 9 4 . to support However, required t o be Green, from 'the o b j e c t of the search a search warrant inquiry t o l o o k a t what does the warrant Thus, of the a f f i d a v i t [was] p r o b a b l y on i t i s not readily that probable cause existed. not end here; we information the affiant 13 [was] are also offered to CR-09-0579 the m a g i s t r a t e who issued the search warrant. The C o u r t i n Green e x p l a i n e d : "Even i f an a f f i d a v i t i s f a c i a l l y d e f e c t i v e f o r t h e r e a s o n s j u s t d i s c u s s e d , i t s d e f i c i e n c y may b e c u r e d by i n f o r m a t i o n an a f f i a n t supplied to the issuing authority i n addition to the assertions i n the a f f i d a v i t . H o w e v e r , no s u c h circumstance i s presented i n t h i s case, because O f f i c e r Flathman t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on G r e e n ' s R u l e 3 2 [ , A l a . R. C r i m . P.,] p e t i t i o n t h a t h e ' [ d i d ] n ' t recall' t e l l i n g t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e who i s s u e d t h e w a r r a n t a n y t h i n g ' [ o ] t h e r t h a n w h a t was o n t h e f o u r c o r n e r s of the [search-warrant a f f i d a v i t ] . ' In t h a t respect, a l s o , t h i s c a s e i s on p o i n t w i t h Nelms a n d L e w i s . "Both o f t h o s e cases i n v o l v e d , as does this case, a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the supporting affidavits l a c k e d a c h r o n o l o g i c a l context by which t o assess t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . N e l m s , 568 S o . 2d a t 386; L e w i s , 589 So. 2 d a t 759. I n b o t h c a s e s , the State attempted t o cure the d e f i c i e n c y of the a f f i d a v i t s with testimony of the affiants regarding f a c t s t h e y h a d o r a l l y c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e j u d g e s who i s s u e d t h e w a r r a n t s . N e l m s , 568 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 6 - 8 7 , L e w i s , 589 So. 2 d a t 759. I n b o t h c a s e s , as i n t h i s case, the a f f i a n t s t e s t i f i e d t h a t they c o u l d not r e c a l l what t h e y h a d t o l d t h e i s s u i n g judge as t o when the informant had observed the illegal activity. In both cases, the Court of Criminal Appeals held, contrary to the holding i n i t s u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum i n t h i s c a s e , t h a t s u c h o r a l testimony i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o cure the d e f i c i e n c y of a supporting affidavit. 15 So. 3d a t 495. Although O f f i c e r the S h a c k e l f o r d s t a t e d t h a t he h a d d i s c u s s e d f r e s h n e s s i s s u e w i t h Deputy Bryant 14 a n d t h a t he l i k e l y h a d CR-09-0579 included last the 24 phrase hours" indicated that observations recall read the magistrate the then about any Officer Court could not, cure Here, to the neither signed not facts made her he could not had asked him any in the not to "I (R. whether inability 29.) he in the contained told the affidavit. recall search that his testimony and Officer had to i s s u e d the i n the presented [the m a g i s t r a t e ] contained deficiencies facts contained i t . " recall conclude the had Shackelford: d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h e m a g i s t r a t e who this had magistrate Shackelford's leads Bryant information he could Deputy the hours, 24 f o r a search warrant] also Officer to fresh within informant preceding issuing According i t , and Shackelford Thus, the is because confidential within application information affidavit regarding affidavit. he the the whether questions [the in "[t]he his warrant d i d not, and affidavit. in the affidavit nor the testimony r e g a r d i n g O f f i c e r S h a c k e l f o r d ' s d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h the i s s u i n g m a g i s t r a t e s u f f i c i e n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d probable to support the Supreme C o u r t ' s issuance holdings of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t . i n Ex p a r t e G r e e n , we 15 cause Thus, g i v e n h a v e no the choice CR-09-0579 but to conclude McIntosh's Based motion that the trial court erred in denying to suppress. on t h e f o r e g o i n g , M c I n t o s h ' s conviction i s reversed and t h i s case i s remanded f o rp r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. R E V E R S E D AND Welch, concurs REMANDED. Windom, and Main, i n the result. 16 J J . , concur. Wise, P.J.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.