Search & seizure; Probable cause for a search warrant; People v. Franklin; People v. Stumpf; People v. Nunez; People v. Nguyen; People v. Waclawski; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Herndon; Whether it was proper to aggregate the separate amounts of cocaine in order to charge defendant with the greater charge of possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more but less than 450 grams of cocaine rather than two lesser charges of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine; People v. Crawford; People v. Marion; People v. Cortez; Actual or constructive possession; People v. Wolfe

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to quash and suppress the evidence because probable cause supported the search warrant. Also, there was sufficient evidence to establish that he had either actual or constructive possession of 50 or more grams, but less than 450 grams, of cocaine. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, even though the cocaine was not all found at the same location. He was convicted of possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more, but less than 450 grams, of cocaine. The court concluded that the affidavit provided probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant. The affiant, Officer A, listed his experience and training in narcotics enforcement. He indicated that approximately 48 hours before the execution of the warrant, a confidential informant (CI) participated in a controlled purchase of cocaine from defendant. The CI was “searched before the controlled buy and did not have any drugs or money on his person or in his vehicle.” The CI was given marked funds by A, and other officers watched as defendant left 7597 K St. and met briefly with the CI. The affidavit stated that defendant returned to 7597 K St., and the CI met with A, turned over cocaine, and stated that he purchased the cocaine from defendant using the marked funds. The substance received by the CI was field-tested and the results were positive for cocaine. The affidavit also included information that the CI had assisted the police “seven times in the past, and that his assistance had led to the arrest of individuals who sold narcotics, as well as the recovery of narcotics, firearms, and proceeds from narcotic sales.” It further provided that police surveillance of 7597 K St. for the past week “established that defendant routinely slept there. According to the affidavit,” the address was not registered to him, but A “believed, based on social media searches, that defendant had a relationship with one of the two persons registered at the address.” Defendant argued that there was not probable cause because no drug transaction took place inside 7597 K St. However, “[p]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of criminal activity.” It could be inferred from the facts in the affidavit “that there was a probability or substantial chance that defendant stored cocaine in” 7597 K St. Affirmed.