from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Steven J.
Haase appeals his convictions for possession with intent to
deliver methamphetamine and failure to affix a drug tax
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.
VAITHESWARAN, PRESIDING JUDGE.
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.
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
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.
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).
novo review of the search warrant application discloses the
following key attestations about the ex-girlfriend. She was
named in the application; she 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").
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
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."
conclude the affiant did not act with reckless disregard for
the truth. We affirm the district court's denial of