The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2664

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Gregory J. Martin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 22, 1998

 Filed: November 3, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory J. Martin appeals his conviction, upon his conditional guilty plea, for

possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). For

reversal, he argues that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to

1

suppress evidence. We affirm.
-2-

Martin had moved to suppress evidence seized pursuant to state search warrants

for premises at 1804 and 1812 West 10th Street in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. In an affidavit

supporting the warrants, a police detective attested that a confidential informant (CI)

told him the following: Martin had returned from Los Angeles on May 19 with a large

quantity of cocaine; Martin lived at 1804 West 10th Street; the drugs were being kept

in that house or a vacant house next door at 1812 West 10th Street, where Martin often

kept his “supply”; and both houses were owned by Martin’s family. The officer further

attested, inter alia, that the CI had proven to be “very reliable” in the past by making

controlled drug purchases from four dealers and assisting police in six felony drug

cases; that in each of those cases, “the information from the CI proved to be true and

valuable to the case”; and that the officer had confirmed Martin’s mother owned both

properties. Martin argues the affidavit did not establish probable cause, in that it failed

to set forth sufficient facts bearing upon the reliability of the CI.

We review for clear error a district court’s decision not to suppress evidence

obtained during the execution of a search warrant. See United States v. Mahler, 141

F.3d 811, 813 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 98-5079, 1998 WL 396473 (U.S. Oct. 5,

1998). An issuing judge’s determination of probable cause for the warrant is entitled

to great deference. See United States v. Wright, 145 F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, No. 98-5857, 1998 WL 596683 (U.S. Oct. 5, 1998). The “core question” in

assessing whether information provided by a CI establishes probable cause is whether

the information is reliable. See United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir.

1993). Reliability can be established if the CI has a history of providing law

enforcement officials with truthful information. See United States v. Formaro, 152 F.3d

768, 770 (8th Cir. 1998); Wright, 145 F.3d at 975. "The statements of a reliable [CI]

are themselves sufficient to support probable cause for a search warrant." Wright, 145

F.3d at 975 (citations omitted). Because the officer’s attestations regarding the CI’s

past assistance sufficiently established the reliability of the CI, we conclude the district

court did not clearly err in denying Martin’s motion to suppress.
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.