Title: State v. Martin
Citation: 318 So. 2d 25
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: September 5, 1975

318 So. 2d 25 (1975) STATE of Louisiana v. Wendell MARTIN. No. 56210. Supreme Court of Louisiana. September 5, 1975. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Ronald *26 L. Monroe, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-relator. James J. Gleason, III, Russell L. Breckenridge, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent. SANDERS, Chief Justice. The state charged the defendant, Wendell Martin, with procuring, receiving, and concealing property worth $2,000.00 stolen from Helpern's Fashion Bar. LSA-R.S. 14:69. Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the evidence, consisting of ten fur coats and a fur hat, on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted defense counsel's motion to suppress the evidence. On application of the State, we granted supervisory writs to review the ruling. See 312 So. 2d 871 (1975). The search warrant at issue was signed by Judge Rudolph Becker, Jr., based on the affidavit which reads: Hosselle and O'Brien checked with the Urban Squad who covers the location of The Fashion Bar, and they stated that The Fashion Bar was burglarized on 9-5-74 and at this time over $7,000.00 worth of coats were taken." After its issuance, the police executed the search warrant and seized ten ladies coats and one ladies hat. The sole issue is whether the affidavit is adequate to support the issuance of a search warrant. Defendant contends that the affidavit does not contain an adequate factual basis for finding both the informant and the information reliable. In State v. Paciera, 290 So. 2d 681 (1974), we reviewed the United States Supreme Court decisions dealing with this issue: United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S. Ct. 2075, 29 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1971); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. *27 Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1964); Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960). In Paciera, we concluded: The present affidavit shows that the informant had furnished accurate reports in the past. It also describes in detail the informant's visit to the residence and his personal observations while there, including the activities of the persons present, the presence of the coats, and their offer for sale. Finally, the affidavit reflects that the detectives investigated and found that The Fashion Bar, located near the residence, had been burglarized five days before the informant visited the residence. In our opinion, the affidavit contains sufficient facts from which the magistrate might find reliable both the informant and the information supplied by him. In view of this conclusion, no further investigative corroboration was required. State v. Humble, La., 309 So. 2d 138 (1975); State v. Boudreaux, La., 304 So. 2d 343 (1974); State v. Paciera, La., supra; Spinelli v. United States, supra. For the reasons assigned, the ruling of the district court suppressing the evidence is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans for further proceedings according to law and consistent with the views herein expressed.