Facts
On the morning of June 16, 2022, Deputy Chad Caffrey with the Tate County Sheriff’s Department was dispatched to the Arkabutla Fire Station because “a male had been shot in the eye.” When Caffrey arrived, first responders were attending to “the male,” Calvin Armstrong. They determined Armstrong had been cut above his eye and not shot. Armstrong told Caffrey that he had picked up his girlfriend, brought her to his home in Water Valley, Mississippi, and an unidentified person began shooting at him.
When Caffrey requested Armstrong’s identification, Armstrong produced an ID card, which listed his address as “308 West Lee Street, Water Valley, Mississippi.” Caffrey asked Armstrong if that was where he lived, and Armstrong replied, “Yes.” Paramedics arrived and transported Armstrong to the hospital.
On the same day, the Tate County Sheriff’s Department contacted the Water Valley Police Department and notified them that they received a report from Markuryion Irby that she had been sexually assaulted at a house in Water Valley. Irby alleged that the sexual assault began in the living room, and then she was forced into the bedroom. Lieutenant Anthony Hernandez with the Water Valley Police Department traveled to Delta Health-Highland Hills Hospital in Senatobia, Mississippi, to interview Irby and obtain her written statement. Unfortunately, Hernandez was unable to secure rape kit results because the hospital’s rape kits had expired.
The next day, Irby and her mother met Hernandez at the Water Valley Police Department to follow him and identify the house where the sexual assault occurred. The residential address for the identified house was “308 West Lee Street, Water Valley, Mississippi.” Aneatha Johnson, Armstrong’s mother, was the registered owner of the house.
On the same day that Irby identified the house, Hernandez prepared an affidavit for a search warrant to obtain evidence of the sexual assault. He presented the affidavit and underlying facts and circumstances to the municipal judge. However, the municipal and justice court judge, Judge Howell, added the address in sections two and seven because Hernandez forgot to include it. In section two of the affidavit, Judge Howell wrote the address as 308 West Street, Water Valley; however, in section seven of the affidavit, and the underlying facts and circumstances document, Judge Howell wrote the address correctly—308 West Lee Street, Water Valley. In section three, the affidavit stated that law enforcement sought articles of personal property used during the sexual assault and any personal property left behind afterward. In section four, the affidavit specified that investigators sought DNA on the bed linens and Irby’s keys, which she had left on the bedroom dresser. Hernandez signed the affidavit that the judge had completed.
Hernandez then prepared the search warrant and swore before Judge Howell that the address where the alleged sexual assault occurred was “308 West Lee Street” in Water Valley. Consistent with that sworn statement, the search warrant correctly listed the residential address as 308 West Lee Street, Water Valley. Judge Howell authorized the search warrant at approximately 3:45 p.m.
Law enforcement searched the home around 6:01 p.m. Following Irby’s description of the sexual assault location, officers first went to the bedroom. There, the officers collected two pillowcases, one cream-colored fitted sheet, and one flat bed sheet. Officers also searched for Irby’s keys. Because they did not find them in the bedroom, they moved the search to the living room, where the alleged sexual assault started. On the living room coffee table, in plain view, officers identified a small plastic bag of what appeared to be marijuana. Around the same time, officers found a shoebox on top of a storage box between the living room and back bedroom’s entrance. Inside the shoebox, officers found $99 and what appeared to be crack cocaine. After finding money and what appeared to be illegal drugs inside the shoebox, Hernandez stopped the search, secured the outside of the house, and left to obtain a second search warrant.
At approximately 8:47 p.m., Judge Howell issued a second search warrant that allowed the officers to search for controlled substances or paraphernalia at 308 West Lee Street. Officers executed it at 9:09 p.m. This warrant correctly listed the residential address as “308 West Lee Street, Water Valley.”
When officers executed the second search warrant, they found what appeared to be six ecstasy tablets and a safe that contained a gallon-size plastic bag weighing approximately 237 grams of what appeared to be cocaine, and $5,259 in United States currency.
On June 20, 2022, Aneatha brought her son, Armstrong, to the police department for questioning during which officers asked Armstrong for his address. Armstrong denied living at 308 West Lee Street in Water Valley and instead told officers that he lived at 701 Airways Acres Drive in Coffeeville. However, officers determined that address did not exist. Armstrong later claimed during booking that he lived with his “baby’s mamma” at a Rolling Hills residence.
Deputy Caffrey testified that he first met Armstrong at Arkabutla Fire Station on June 16, 2022, the date of the alleged sexual assault. Armstrong told Caffrey that the shooting occurred at his home in Water Valley. Further, Caffrey testified that Armstrong’s identification card listed his address as 308 West Lee Street, Water Valley, and Armstrong verbally confirmed that this was the address where he lived.
Next, Hernandez, a lieutenant with the Water Valley Police Department, testified that Irby identified the location of the sexual assault as 308 West Lee Street in Water Valley. He also testified that the same address was on the underlying affidavit for the first and second search warrants. In executing the first warrant for evidence of a sexual assault, the officers searched for sheets, pillowcases, and Irby’s keys. When they did not find Irby’s keys on the bedroom dresser or anywhere in the bedroom, they continued the search in the living room. They noticed marijuana in plain view on the coffee table. Around the same time, officers noticed a shoebox on top of a blue storage box, which was located between the living room and the back bedroom entrance. Looking inside the shoebox for keys, officers found $99 and what appeared to be crack cocaine.
Britt, a patrolman with the Water Valley Police Department and a member of the investigation team, testified to the events that occurred while executing the search warrants, including the evidence found. Britt confirmed that the search occurred at 308 West Lee Street in Water Valley.
Armstrong was charged with one count of sexual battery, one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139(c) (Rev. 2018), and one count of possession of thirty grams or more of cocaine with intent to transfer in violation of section 41-29-139(a)(1) and (f)(2)(A). The sexual battery charge was remanded to the file without
prejudice, and Armstrong was tried and convicted on the other two charges. He was sentenced to 10 years in MDOC.
Armstrong appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence obtained based on the second warrant should have been suppressed because it resulted from the first warrant, which he argues was void because the underlying affidavit contained a different address than the search warrant. He further contends that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home, that the first warrant was invalid, and that the second warrant must, therefore, be found void, making the evidence gathered inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. MCOA affirmed.
Analysis
A. Standing
If a person denies ownership or possession of property, he later has no standing to complain that the search of it was unlawful. We determine the issue of standing after a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched; and (2) whether, from society’s perspective, that expectation was reasonable.
Tullos is an example of a defendant’s lack of standing to challenge evidence seized on someone else’s property. In that case, patrol officers from the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks entered private property after hearing shooting. They encountered Tullos, who threw a bag behind a pole as he approached the officers. When asked about the contents, Tullos admitted to the officers that the bag contained “meth.” During a motion to suppress hearing, Tullos contended that any statements or evidence should be suppressed because his grandmother owned the land where the evidence was seized, and his home was located across the street. The trial court denied his motion and on appeal, this Court held that he lacked standing to contest the search because the evidence was seized on land owned by his grandmother, not Tullos.
In Waldrop v. State, 544 So. 2d 834 (Miss. 1989), the defendant lacked standing to suppress evidence when the property owner consented to the search. There, Waldrop, who was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine, admitted he had been in a trailer owned by Mary Lube three hours prior to his arrest. After obtaining Lube’s consent to search the trailer, police found five balls of a doughy substance that was later identified as methamphetamine. Glassware and other objects used to process the methamphetamine were also found. On appeal, Waldrop sought to challenge the validity of the consent Lube gave. The MSC held that Waldrop had no standing to assert Lube’s rights. The Court further found that Lube could consent to the search of her own property.
In this case, the trial court made a factual finding as to where Armstrong lived. Armstrong told officers that he did not live at 308 West Lee Street in Water Valley. Further, he provided officers with two alternative addresses: one in Coffeeville, which upon verification did not exist, and another in Rolling Hills, where he claimed to live with his “baby’s mamma.” Additionally, the tax records demonstrate that the owner of the property was Armstrong’s mother, and her testimony corroborates this fact. Despite Armstrong’s filing a response to the civil forfeiture claim asserting a possessory interest in the money found at the house, his initial express disclaimer denying residency contradicts that claim.
From our review of the record, the trial court properly found that Armstrong lacked standing to contest the search of 308 West Lee Street, given that he expressly denied residing at that location. Because he had no standing, his arguments concerning the validity of the warrants fail.
B. Search warrant
Even if Armstrong had standing to challenge the search warrants, his arguments fail. Armstrong contends that the search warrant for the sexual battery evidence was defective due to an incorrect address in the supporting affidavit. He further argues that the drugs found pursuant to that warrant and the subsequent search warrant were “fruit of the poisonous tree.” We disagree.
Armstrong points to one error in the underlying affidavit submitted for the first search warrant and claims that the entire warrant was defective. In one of two separate places in the form affidavit, the judge who filled in the blanks on the form wrote “308 West Street” as the premises to be searched, instead of “308 West Lee Street.” In the second blank requiring an address, the judge put in the correct, full address. Most technical deficiencies which exist on the face of the warrant will not result in suppression unless it is clear that the defect defeats probable cause or authorizes a general search. The MSC has held that a magistrate issuing a search warrant may consider both the officer’s written affidavit and any supplementary oral testimony. Petti v. State, 666 So. 2d 754(Miss. 1995).
Here, three documents were issued in connection with the first search warrant relating to the sexual battery charge, including the recitation of the underlying facts and circumstances, the officer’s affidavit, and the search warrant. It is undisputed that the affidavit, signed by the officer, listed the address twice, in two separate sections. The officer had left the addresses blank, which the court filled in. In section two, the court omitted “Lee” from the street name. However, on the same page, the court put the correct address in section seven. The search warrant itself listed the correct address to be searched: “308 West Lee Street, Water Valley, Mississippi.” Further, the underlying facts and circumstances attached to the warrant also listed the correct address.
Additionally, Hernandez’s testimony under oath before the Judge included the correct address. The totality of the circumstances in this case was more than sufficient for officers to search 308 West Lee Street. Finally, the correct address was searched. Because the search warrant document itself was free of technical deficiencies, and because the totality of the circumstances provided substantial evidence establishing probable cause, we find no error in the court’s denial of Armstrong’s motion to suppress the evidence that resulted from the initial search.
Further, because the first search warrant was valid, any evidence or information obtained from it was admissible and could lawfully form the basis for the issuance of the subsequent warrant to search for drugs. The “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” only prohibits the admission of evidence acquired during an unlawful search or other constitutional violation. Here, the drugs were seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant, which, in turn, was based on information obtained in the execution of a prior lawful search warrant.