Title: State v. Smith

State: louisiana

Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court

Document:

350 So. 2d 1178 (1977) STATE of Louisiana v. Willie SMITH, Jr. No. 59595. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 10, 1977. Richard V. Burnes, Gravel, Roy & Burnes, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant. *1179 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., William C. Pegues, Dist. Atty., William E. Tilley, First Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. SANDERS, Chief Justice. The State indicted Willie Smith, Jr., for the possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, a violation of LSA-R.S. 40:966. After trial, the jury returned a responsive verdict of guilty of possession of heroin. The court sentenced defendant to nine years imprisonment. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, relying upon nine assignments of error. However, finding reversible error in his first assignment, we pretermit the remaining eight. The context facts are that: On November 16, 1974, a search warrant was issued, authorizing the search of Willie Smith's person, car, and motel room. In executing the warrant, police stopped defendant in his car and informed him of the search warrant. The police then searched defendant's clothing and found a matchbox containing eight packets of heroin. Within one or two minutes, Officer Parker arrived on the scene with the warrant and presented it to the defendant. After being given the matchbox containing the heroin found by his fellow officers, Parker arrested defendant and searched his person a second time. This second search produced a ninth packet of heroin. Subsequent searches of the car and the motel room yielded no additional contraband. In his motion to suppress, defendant contends that the search warrant is invalid because the affidavit on which it issued did not contain sufficient facts warranting probable cause. The affidavit reads as follows: Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the affiant's knowledge, and of which he has reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient unto themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed. State v. Sierra, La., 338 So. 2d 609 (1976); State v. Hightower, La., 272 So. 2d 363 (1973). The magistrate must be supplied with enough information to support an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the issuance of a warrant. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S. Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1971); State v. Sierra, supra; State v. Holmes, 254 La. 501, 225 So. 2d 1 (1969). In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964), the United States Supreme Court held that when a search warrant is based solely on hearsay, the affidavit must indicate some of the underlying circumstances on which the informant bases his conclusions and some of the circumstances supporting the informant's credibility. Then, in State v. Paciera, La., 290 So. 2d 681 (1974), we outlined the requisites in an affidavit, as follows: The affidavit in the present case sets forth that the informant had given prior accurate reports which led to several arrests and convictions. These facts are sufficient to establish the reliability of the unidentified informant. State v. Sierra, supra; State v. Roach, La., 322 So. 2d 222 (1975); State v. Humble, La., 309 So. 2d 138 (1975); State v. Paciera, supra. In addition, the affidavit must demonstrate the reliability of the information provided by the informant. The information's reliability may be established by (1) the informant's personal observation, State v. Harris, La., 343 So. 2d 145 (1977); State v. Culotta, La., 343 So. 2d 977 (1976); State v. Paciera, supra, or (2) the recitation of the facts upon which the informant based his conclusion, State v. Sierra, supra; State v. Vince, La., 305 So. 2d 916 (1974). The supporting affidavit recites that the confidential informant told Officer Parker that Smith went to Beaumont, Texas, to purchase heroin in order to return to Leesville and sell it, and that Smith returned at 8:00 that morning and "to his knowledge" had made three heroin sales within an hour. The affidavit does not set forth that the informant personally observed the various events reported or had direct personal knowledge of the factual allegations recited. The informant could well have been relying upon hearsay information or could have reached his own conclusion from circumstantial evidence. The affidavit does not disclose how the information was acquired. Hence, the affidavit failed to demonstrate the reliability of the information. In State v. Humble, supra, we held that when the affidavit merely contained unsubstantiated rumors and conclusory statements, it provided no adequate basis for a magistrate's finding of probable cause. When questioned regarding the information given by his paid informant, the affiant officer was asked whether he asked the informant how he obtained the information. He replied that he did not. "A. No I don't. (Record p. 80.) "Q. Did you ask this informant how he got that information (that Smith had sold the heroin after returning from Beaumont)? The search warrant is fatally defective. Consequently, all evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the warrant, the nine packets of heroin found on defendant's person, must be suppressed. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are reversed. The case is remanded for a new trial consistent with law and the views herein expressed.