Document: 386 U.S. 300 87 S.Ct. 1056 18 L.Ed.2d 62 George McCRAY, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 159. Argued Jan. 10 and 11, 1967. Decided March 20, Rehearing Denied May 8, See 1042, 1474. R. Eugene Pincham, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. John J. O'Toole, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner was arrested in Illinois, on morning January 16, 1964, possession narcotics. Chicago police officers who made arrest found a package containing heroin his person he indicted its unlawful possession. Prior to trial filed motion suppress as evidence against him, claiming that had acquired it an search seizure violation Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081. After hearing, court denied motion, subsequently convicted upon arresting judgment conviction affirmed by Supreme Court Illinois,1 we granted certiorari consider petitioner's claim hearing constitutionally defective.2 2 occurred near intersection 49th Street Calumet Avenue at about seven morning. At suppress, testified up until half hour before been 'a friend's house' block away, after leaving house 'walked with lady from 48th South Park,' that, approached Avenue, '(t)he Officers stopped me going through alley.' 'The officers,' said, 'did not show warrant my or arrest.' He said then searched him narcotics question.3 did identify 'friend' 'lady,' neither them appeared witness. 3 testified. Officer Jackson stated two fellow conversation informant 16 their unmarked car. officer told petitioner, whom acquainted, 'was selling could be vicinity 47th this particular time.' drove car when they spotted pointed out departed foot. observed walking woman, separating her meeting briefly man, proceeding alone, finally, seeing car, 'hurriedly walk(ing) between buildings.' 'At point,' testified, 'my partner myself got informed information person, placed vehicle point.' cigarette package. 4 acquainted approximately year, during period supplied activities 'fifteen, sixteen times least,' proved accurate resulted numerous arrests convictions. On cross-examination, even more specific informant's previous reliability, giving names people violations result supplied. When asked name address, counsel State objected, objection sustained court.4 5 Arnold gave substantially same account circumstances search, stating now Calumet.' informant, 'said (the petitioner) various people, meaning addicts, area known 'roughly years,' given concerning '20 25 times,' too cross-examination objections these questions were court. There can no doubt, basis related Arnold, there probable cause sustain incidental case. Draper United States, 358 307, 79 329, 327. Unlike situation Beck 379 89, 85 223, 13 142, each case described specificity 'what informer actually why thought credible.' U.S., 97, S.Ct., 229. testimony 'underlying which concluded where claimed were, some underlying * 'credible' 'reliable." Aguilar Texas, 378 108, 114, 84 1509, 1514, 12 723. States Ventresca, 380 102, 741, 684. Upon those circumstances, along officers' personal observations fully justified holding time 'the facts within knowledge reasonably trustworthy sufficient prudent man believing committed committing offense. Brinegar 338 160, 175—176, 69 1302, 1310—1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879; Henry 361 98, 80 168, 171, 134,' supra, 91, 225. It is claim, however, though sworn supported finding state nonetheless violated Constitution identity informant. We cannot agree. 7 In permitting withhold identity, following well-settled Illinois law. issue guilt innocence, but, here, question has held need invariably required disclose if judge convinced, submitted open subject rely good faith credible reliable informant.5 This evidentiary rule consistent law many other States.6 California, Legislature 1965 enacted statute adopting just such cases like one us: 8 '(I)n any preliminary criminal trial, proceeding, provision Division (commencing Section 11000) Health Safety Code, communicated peace confidential material witness innocence accused offense charged, shall admissible reasonable make without requiring disclosed magistrate satisfied, based produced court, presence jury, received discretion does require disclosure.' California Evid.Code § 1042(c).7 9 reasoning New Jersey judicially basic instructively expressed Chief Weintraub Burnett, 42 N.J. 377, 201 A.2d 39: 'If defendant may insist disclosure order test truth officer's statement what sure every will demand disclosure. nothing lose prize suppression damaging afford reveal source, so often And since way presses demand, must assume routine would have routinely granted. use only lead gather adequate apart data. Perhaps approach sharpen investigatorial techniques, but doubt enough talent cope crime basis. Rather accept premise vital part society's defensive arsenal. protecting rests belief. 11 'We remember also are dealing charge itself. truthful verdict outweighs privilege. Here, seeks avoid truth. very purpose escape inculpatory thrust hand, because probative force diluted least mode seizure, rather sanction compel enforcement respect constitutional security all us under Amendment. Smith, 37 481, 486, 181 761 (1962). If denied, still judged untarnished Amendment served judicial mind passes existence cause. Where application warrant, trusted evaluate credibility affiant ex parte proceeding. As concerned, whether lied, recitation told. doubts affiant, identified produced. seems equally say, should rest entirely hears decide needs believable witness.' N.J., 385—388, A.2d, 43—45. What sister done than recognize well-established testimonial privilege, long familiar evidence. Professor Wigmore, enthusiastic advocate privileges generally,8 privilege words: 14 'A genuine fundamental principle *, recognized persons supplying government commission crimes. Communications kind ought receive encouragement. They discouraged informer's disclosed. Whether motivated citizenship, promise leniency prospect pecuniary reward, usually condition cooperation assurance anonymity—to protect himself family harm, preclude adverse social reactions risk defamation malicious prosecution actions him. interest nondisclosure informers. Law depend professional informers furnish flow activities. Revelation dual role played ends usefulness discourages others entering into relationship. 15 'That well established, soundness questioned.' (Footnotes omitted.) Evidence 2374 (McNaughton rev. 1961). federal courts rules trials governed 'by principles common interpreted light reason experience.'9 Court, therefore, ultimate task defining scope accorded cases. Hawkins 74, 136, 125. quite different, course, responsibility adjudication. exercise supervisory jurisdiction occasion years ago, Roviaro 353 53, 77 623, 639, give thorough consideration aspect itself having system.10 17 involved determine guilt. brought two-court indictment charging sale transportation According prosecution's evidence, active participant crime. 'had taken bringing certain drugs accused, present occurrence alleged crime, might knowingly transported charged.' 55, 625. defense identity. where, actual case, 19 relevant helpful essential fair determination cause, way. situations and, Government withholds information, dismiss action. 20 believe fixed justifiable. problem calls balancing public individual's right prepare defense. proper balance renders erroneous taking possible defenses, significance testimony, factors.' 60—61, 62, 628. 21 Court's carefully reviewed Roviaro's pointing 'possible highly *,' 'might entrapment thrown lack contents 'transported' 'informer sole participant, transaction 63—64, 629—630. 'that, prejudicial error undercover employee face repeated demands 65, S.Ct, 630. 22 thus makes clear unwilling impose absolute formulating trials. Much less ever formulation compulsory stake. Indeed, repeatedly applying warrant. 745, 684, 'recognized 'an affidavit hearsay reflect direct affiant,' 'informed circumstances' supporting affiant's conclusions belief 'whose 1514.' (Emphasis added.) Jones 362 257, 271—272, 725, 736—737, 697; Rugendorf 376 528, 533, 825, 828, 887.11 Term point virtually prohibiting 'severely hamper Government' laws. Lewis 385 206, 210, 424, 427, 312. 23 sum, power formulate consistently declined hold always let alone search. Yet somehow compels abolish appears reliance trust. argument Due Process Clause Amendment, Sixth confrontation, applicable Pointer 400, 1065, 923. find support position either provisions. 24 precise detail trustworthy. Each oath. subjected searching cross-examination. obviously satisfied telling truth, exercised conferred established Nothing requires perjury. 'To take step beyond pale function our system. wholly unjustifiable encroachment promulgate own *.' Spencer 554, 568—569, 648, 656, 606. 26 explain precisely how thinks confrontation Illinois' recognition producing testify repeat answer few weeks ago Cooper California: 27 'Petitioner presents contention here unconstitutionally deprived confront produce absolutely devoid merit.' 58, n. 2, 788, 791, 730. 28 cross-examine themselves, refusal upheld. But follow assert including self-incrimination guaranteed never construction, decline do now. 29 Affirmed. 30 DOUGLAS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BRENNAN FORTAS concur, dissenting. 31 validity arrest. see being course seize culprit. fleeing scene stop 'hot pursuit' instances normally issued showing 'probable Oath affirmation,' Mapp. 1081, much bound provisions Federal Government. fashion approves. With deference, requirements conclusion unconstitutional. 32 No obtained police, instead making cause' tip-off, acted own. They, magistrate, became arbiters cause.' approval process effectively rewrites 33 61, 628, communications claims cause,' required. absence By States. 34 96, 228, said: 35 'An bypasses safeguards provided objective predetermination substitutes far procedure after-the-event justification likely subtly influenced shortcomings hindsight judgment.' 36 For weighted warrants heavily warrants. 106, 744, Only anyone persuasiveness relied 113, 1513, 723.1 Without nor lower know Under decision leave exclusively custody police. Schaefer dissenting People Durr, Ill.2d 308, 318, 192 N.E.2d 379, 384, unless policeman conclusively determines That view Priestly Superior 50 Cal.2d 812, 818, 330 P.2d 39, 43: 'Only opportunity contrary impeaching reasonableness issue. Such requirement unreasonably discourage free otherwise impede enforcement. Actually effect independent investigations verify uncover establish search.' 38 reliability Old Reliable, informer, produced, cross-examined. Unless entrusted tender mercies police.2 today encourage searches whole momentum administration opposite direction, remain force. Except rare emergency cases, magistrates findings mindful command interposed citizen. 'disclosure, suppression, materials ordinarily promotes justice.' Dennis 384 855, 870, 86 1840, 1849, 973. 66, 210 161. 949, 1575, 546. weather 'real cold,' three coats.' conduct remove clothing, version remotely akin condemned Rochin 342 165, 72 205, 96 183. 'Q. you information? 'Mr. Engerman: Objection, Your Honor. Court: record reasons your objection. Judge, used worked individual, public, I forced harm jeopardy individual cooperated City tremendous able get informants. willing lives become known. 'In community, feel cite vs. Durr. that. Adam: Q. live? Honor, Sustained.' L.E.2d 379; Nettles, 52, 213 536; Connie, 353, 215 280; Freeman, 362, 206; Miller, 527, 216 793. Cf. Pitts, 395, 186 357; Parren, 572, 182 662. Cookson, S.W.2d 683 (Mo.Sup.Ct.); Simmons State, 198 Tenn. 587, 281 487; Coffey, N.Y.2d 443, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 263. Malinsky, 86, 262 209 694. Stelloh Liban, Wis.2d 119, 124 N.W.2d 101; Baker 150 So.2d 729 (Fla.App.); Boles, 246 N.C. 83, 97 S.E.2d 476. amicus brief, advising California. Martin (LA 29078). modify court's 39. Ford Jackson, 153 Miss. 616, 121 So. 278. 2192 Rule 26, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. Scher 305 251, 59 174, 83 151; re Quarles & Butler, 158 532, 959, 39 1080; Vogel Gruaz, 110 311, 12, 158. Some applied both nonwarrant Smith 123 U.S.App.D.C. 202, F.2d 833; 326 (C.A.9th Cir.), cert. 377 956, 1635, 499; One 1957 Ranchero Pickup, 265 (C.A.10th Cir.). Other courts, distinguished classes identification informants Robinson, 325 391 (C.A.2d Cir.); Cochran 291 633 (C.A.8th Wilson 390 (C.A.3d Comment, Informer's Word Basis Probable Cause Courts, 53 Calif.L.Rev. 840 (1965). drawing distinction dictum 639: 'Most involving limitation arisen legality communication.' Since Roviaro, quoted clearly necessary decision. determinations conflict case-by-case based. Moreover, precedent grounded furnishes dubious support. 151, cited, judge's source information. Quoting Giordenello 357 78 1245, 1250, 1503. unknown misrepresent connection allegedly informer. See, e.g., Pearce, Cir., 275 322.

Category: 0