State v. Ridgley

1

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. SCOTT EUGENE RIDGLEY, Appellant.

No. 38840-9-III

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3

April 25, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Staab J.

We previously remanded this case for the trial court to determine whether improperly obtained video recordings affected the outcome of Scott Ridgley's trial.^[1] On remand, the trial court determined that the recordings did not affect the decision of the magistrate to issue a warrant for Ridgley's property and that any error in admitting the recordings at Ridgley's trial was harmless.

In this second appeal, Ridgley argues that the trial court applied the wrong standard to reach its result. We agree. With respect to the search warrant, we conclude that the error was harmless because there was sufficient independent evidence to support the officer's decision to seek the warrant and the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant.

We reach a different conclusion with respect to the trial. At trial, the recordings were a central part of the State's evidence and substantiated the disputable testimony of the informant. We conclude that there is a reasonable probability that admission of the recordings materially affected the outcome of the trial and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision in part, vacate Ridgley's convictions, and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

1. Allegations

The Joint Narcotics Enforcement Team (JNET) for Lewis County arranged for a confidential informant to purchase controlled substances from Ridgley.^[2] The controlled buys were conducted on Ridgley's property in rural Lewis County. The property contained two separate residences with separate addresses the 509 and 517 residences. The 509 residence was larger and included a shop. The 517 residence, where Ridgley lived, was smaller.

Law enforcement officers instructed the informant to conduct two controlled buys from Ridgley about one week apart. During both buys, the informant wore a video and audio wire that provided a live feed and recording of the informant's actions. After each buy, the informant turned over methamphetamine to law enforcement.

After the controlled buys were completed, law enforcement sought a warrant to search Ridgley's residences. The search warrant declaration included an account of what the officer had witnessed on the live feed during the first controlled buy. The declaration also contained the informant's account of how Ridgley had sold him drugs during the controlled buys. In addition, the declaration contained information on reports from several other individuals who had claimed that Ridgley had previously sold them drugs or reported that Ridgley was selling drugs. Finally, the declaration included Ridgley's criminal history, noting that he had seven prior felony convictions for narcotic-related crimes. Nothing in the declaration suggested that the recordings were attached or otherwise included in the warrant request.

The magistrate granted the search warrant, and law enforcement executed a search on both residences. During the search, law enforcement located a black plastic box containing methamphetamine, cash, and a scale.

The State charged Ridgley with two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, one count of maintaining a premises or vehicle for using controlled substances, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm.

2. Trial

At trial, the State used the recordings to support all of the charges against Ridgley with the exception of the possession of a firearm charge.

Confidential Informant's Testimony

Independent of the recordings, the informant testified that during each of the controlled buys, he purchased one ounce of methamphetamine. After the State played the recording from the first controlled buy, the informant testified about that buy. He stated that the transaction occurred in Ridgley's house, the 517 residence. He explained that Ridgley had retrieved the methamphetamine from a black plastic box and handed it to him. Following the buy, the informant met law enforcement at a predetermined location and turned over the drugs.

After the State played the recordings from the second controlled buy, the informant testified about the second transaction. He testified that the second buy occurred in the same manner as the first and that he again left and met law enforcement at a predetermined location.

The informant testified that other individuals were present on the property during both buys. The informant also testified that police searched him and his vehicle before and after both buys.

In addition to the controlled buys, the informant said that he had been to Ridgley's home the week before the first controlled buy and had seen controlled substances at the property. He also said that while he was there he had seen a firearm lying on a table near Ridgley.

During defense counsel's cross-examination of the informant counsel replayed the recordings from the controlled buys and the informant pointed out precisely where, in each recording, Ridgley handed him methamphetamine.

Police Testimony

Detective Chad Withrow testified regarding the controlled buys with the confidential informant. He said the informant had agreed to work, and in exchange, "instead of getting charged for . . . three deliveries, he'd take possession charges instead and not go to prison." Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 68.

Detective Withrow went over the process used for conducting controlled buys. He explained that police conduct a strip search of the informant and a thorough search of the informant's vehicle immediately before and after the controlled buys. These searches allowed police to corroborate what happened during the controlled buy. Detective Withrow testified that he found nothing on the informant during either of the searches.

Detectives Withrow and Robin Holt conducted surveillance of the informant during the buys. However, they lost physical sight of the informant before he arrived at Ridgley's property and relied on the live feed^[3] to know what was going on.

Detectives Mathew Schlecht and Adam Haggerty^[4] were part of a second surveillance team near Ridgley's property. They testified that they could see the informant arrive at Ridgley's property in his car but, beyond that, relied on the live feed to know what was going on.

Detective Schlecht testified about what he witnessed on the live feed during the first controlled buy. Detective Withrow similarly testified as to what he had observed via the live feed during and after both of the controlled buys.

Testimony from law enforcement explained that the informant purchased the methamphetamine with money provided to him by law enforcement. This allowed law enforcement to track the money if it was later recovered. The State presented photocopies of the buy money, taken prior to the controlled buys, given to the informant prior to purchasing the methamphetamine.

Law enforcement testified that when they executed the search warrant on Ridgley's property the day after the second controlled buy, Ridgley was standing outside with another man and other people were on the property. Detective Haggerty testified that during the search, officers encountered Ridgley's son, Larry Ridgley, in the shop next to the 509 residence. He also said that police recovered a black plastic box "right where Mr. Ridgley was standing." RP at 255. However, as Detective Haggerty was discussing both Scott Ridgley and Larry Ridgley in this portion of his testimony, it is unclear to whom he was referring when he said "Mr. Ridgley."^[5] The box contained over $6,000 in cash, a scale, and suspected methamphetamine.

While searching Ridgley's 517 residence, an officer testified that a dismantled gun was found in what appeared to be the dining room. Officer Curtright stated that he had seen a target with bullet holes in it out the back window of the 517 residence. Detective Schlecht testified that the firearm was reassembled and "test-fired" and it functioned properly.

Detective Withrow testified that during the search, the officers recovered money from both of the controlled buys. He said that a $10 bill was found on Ridgley's person. The State presented photos of the buy money recovered from the box. The State also produced a photo of a $10 bill found on Ridgley, but there is no evidence that this particular $10 bill was part of the buy money. The State did not present any photos of the buy money found on Ridgley.

On cross-examination, Detective Withrow admitted that he did not personally recover any buy money from either of the buys and that no photos were taken of the buy money recovered on Ridgley. He testified that none of the buy money was retained as it had been returned to the JNET fund.

Closing Argument and Jury Verdict

The State repeatedly emphasized and relied on the recordings during its closing argument. The State argued that the recording device provided clear evidence of what occurred while the informant was on Ridgley's property:

[W]hat we have is what was shown on the recording and in the testimony was that [the confidential informant] exited his car, didn't contact anyone other than Mr. Ridgley who's the defendant and he identified him in court.

. . . .

So you saw the video and you heard testimony about what Mr Ridgley did during this controlled buy.

. . . .

And so on both occasions [the confidential informant] and Mr Ridgley make their way into 517. And on both occasions you can see Mr. Ridgley pull out a large ["baggie"] containing a large amount of crystal substance. One video admittedly has more detail than the other and that will be the first video. But

...