Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Alejandro MENA et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-09-13
Citations: 344 So. 2d 357
Docket Number: No. 57653
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Alejandro MENA et al.
Judges: DENNIS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 344
Pages: 357–360

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Alejandro MENA et al.
No. 57653.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 13, 1976.
Dissenting Opinion April 6, 1977.
Daniel J. Caruso, Alford & Caruso, New Orleans, for defendants-respondents.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry P. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., George S. Ingalls, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty.,' for plaintiff-relator.

Opinion:
MARCUS, Justice.
Alejandro G. Mena, Jose G. Mena, and Gustave S. Mena were charged by bill of information with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. La.R.S. 40:966(AX1); La.R.S. 40:964(C)(10). Defendants filed a motion to suppress the marijuana seized, which the trial judge, following a hearing on the motion, sustained. We granted the state's application for certiorari.
On June 17, 1975, Detective Emmett Du-pas of the New Orleans Police Department executed a sworn application for a warrant to search the residence of defendant Jose Mena. His affidavit recites in pertinent part as follows:
THE reasons and facts for the request of this search warrant are:
On 6-17-75 at about 4:17 AM Dets. Brian Girod and Anthony Kirsch of the St. Bernard PD arrested one Jimmy B. Samson with the possession of one pound of Marijuana. After being advised of his rights Samson showed the Dets. from St. Bernard the house that he bought the Marijuana from at 5:00 AM and at this time pointed out the doorway of 4302 S. Car-rolton (sic) and stated that the subject by the name of Jose had sold the marijuana for the sum of $130.00. Det. Dupas checked and learned that a subject by the name of Jose Mena resided at this address NOPD B of I # 179-187. Jimmy Samson was shown this photo and he stated that this was the same subject that he purchased the marijuana from and also that at the time he bought the marijuana he observed numerous other pack ages similar to the one that he purchased containing marijuana in the house.
A search warrant issued on June 17, 1975 for the search of Jose Mena's residence. Detective Dupas executed the warrant the same day and seized twenty-three pounds of marijuana pursuant to his search of the premises.
The principal ground of defendants' motion to suppress the marijuana seized as a result of this search is that Detective Du-pas' affidavit failed to make a showing that his informant was reliable, and, thus, did not establish probable cause for issuance of a search warrant.
A search warrant may issue only upon probable cause, established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for issuance of the warrant. La. Code Crim.P. art. 162. See also U.S. amend. 4; La.Const. art. I, § 5 (1974). In State v. Paciera, 290 So.2d 681, 685 (La.1974), we stated the rule as follows:
. The affidavit submitted to the magistrate may be based entirely upon hearsay, but, if so, it must set forth underlying circumstances and details sufficient to provide a substantial factual basis by which the magistrate might find reliable both the informant and the information given by him. Factors which support the credibility of an unidentified informant include prior accurate reports or any specific independent corroboration of the accuracy of the instant report. Factors which support the creditability of the information reported include (a) direct personal observation by the informant, or (b), if the information came indirectly to the informant, the reasons in sufficient factual detail for the magistrate to evaluate and credit the reliability both of the indirect source and of the indirectly-obtained information.
Accord, State v. Martin, 318 So.2d 25 (La.1975).
In our opinion, the facts recited in the affidavit clearly provide an adequate basis upon which the issuing magistrate could conclude that the informant was credible and his information reliable. The reliability of the information reported is sufficiently established by the informant's direct personal observation and actual participation in the sale of marijuana. As the affidavit discloses, the informant, Jimmy Samson, had been arrested for possession of marijuana. He told officers that a person named "Jose" had sold him the marijuana and lived at a specified address. The credibility of the informant is established by two factors. First, the informant's report that Jose lived at the specified address was corroborated by the affiant's independent investigation. Second, the informant's admissions, included in the affidavit, that he purchased marijuana from defendant Jose Mena, as well as his photographic identification of Jose Mena, constituted declarations against penal interest because they supplied evidence against him of guilty knowledge, an essential element of the crime of the possession of a controlled dangerous substance. State v. Knight, 298 So.2d 726 (La.1974) and cases cited therein. In United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 2082, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971), the United States Supreme Court stated that declarations against penal interest provide a strong reason for crediting an informant's tip:
People do not lightly admit a crime and place critical evidence in the hands of the police in the form of their own admissions. Admissions of crime, like admissions against proprietary interests, carry their own indicia of credibility — sufficient at ¡east to support a finding of probable cause to search.
(Emphasis added.)
We find no merit in defendants' contention that the affidavit did not establish the informant's credibility because it did not make a showing that he had supplied accurate criminal reports in the past. A prior record of accurate criminal reports is an important factor in establishing the credibility of an unidentified informant. State v. Paciera, supra. However, common sense, which must guide magistrates and courts in testing search warrants, suggests that the importance of this factor is necessarily diminished where, as here, the informant is named in the affidavit. We think the facts recited in the affidavit indicate the informant's credibility just as strongly as would any allegations in the affidavit that the informant had previously given correct reports of criminal activity.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial judge erred in sustaining the motion to suppress the evidence.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the ruling of the trial judge sustained the motion to suppress the evidence is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
DENNIS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965).