Date: 10-21-2018

Case Style:

State of Iowa v. Mark Haase

Case Number: 17-0410

Judge: Anuradha Vaitheswaran

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General

Defendant's Attorney: Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender

Description:

Sooner Cannabis Consultants
Click Here For Expert Help

918-960-5038

Boone police applied for a warrant to search the home of Mark Haase. The
warrant application was partially based on information provided by Haase’s ex
girlfriend. A magistrate granted the application.
The officers executed the search warrant and uncovered large amounts of
cash and methamphetamine. The State subsequently charged Haase with
possession with intent to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine and
failure to affix a drug tax stamp. See Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(b)(7), 453B.12
(2016). Haase moved to suppress the evidence on the ground “[t]he State misled
the issuing magistrate by ignoring and withholding pertinent exculpatory evidence.”
The district court denied the motion. The case was tried before a jury, which found
Haase guilty of both crimes. The district court imposed judgment and sentence.
On appeal, Haase asserts the Boone police officer who attested to facts in
support of the search warrant application “acted with reckless disregard for the
truth.” He cites the officer’s failure to consider his ex-girlfriend’s lack of credibility.
“[R]eckless disregard can be proven in two ways”: (1) “by showing directly
that the affiant had serious doubts as to the veracity of an informant’s statement”
or (2) “from circumstances evincing ‘obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the
allegations.’” State v. Niehaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 187 (Iowa 1990) (citation
omitted). “The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is
permitted . . . is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.”
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978).

Our de novo review of the search warrant application discloses the following
key attestations about the ex-girlfriend. She was named in the application; she
3
lived with Haase “for approximately [one] year”; she was last inside the house just
one day before the attestation was made; and she identified several hiding places
for the methamphetamine, including “a black plastic mug/thermos with a
removable piece concealing a hidden space inside,” “tubes of caulking . . . hidden
in a pile of tools in the main living room area,” and a “speaker enclosure.” See
State v. Frakes, No. 17-0359, 2018 WL 1433581, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 21,
2018) (noting the informant “supplied specifics as to the quantity and location of
drugs . . . in the home”).
Certainly, the ex-girlfriend was not a model citizen. See id. (noting the
affiant “acknowledged the informant was ‘not known for credibility’”). But, as the
district court stated, “[M]ost informants have issues such as drug use, questionable
associates, criminal records or other characteristics which general law-abiding
individuals do not have” and “[i]t is these exact circumstances that put them in a
situation where they learn information which is useful to law enforcement.” See id.
(stating the officer explained he believed the informant’s “statements about [the
defendant] because they were against her interests and corroborated other
evidence”).
On our de novo review, we agree with the district court that “[t]here is
nothing about the information provided by [the ex-girlfriend] or the lack of
information about [her] in the warrant application which suggests or should have
suggested that [her] veracity should be questioned as it relates to Haase being in
possession of drugs.”

Outcome: We conclude the affiant did not act with reckless disregard for the truth. We
affirm the district court’s denial of Haase’s suppression motion and his judgment and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: