Opinion ID: 2547964
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ruling on the motion was correct as a matter of law.

Text: As the second step in our appellate review, we must conduct a de novo review of the ruling on the motion to suppress to determine whether it was correct as a matter of law. Pride, 302 S.W.3d at 49. To make this determination, we apply the totality of the circumstances test developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gates. Pride, 302 S.W.3d at 48. The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for ... conclud[ing] that probable cause existed. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317. It is clear that in this case, the trial court had a substantial basis for its conclusion. As noted above, the affidavit stated that the officer received information from a reliable confidential informant that she had made a successful controlled purchase of crack cocaine at [Appellant's address]. The affidavit further states that the swearing officer [l]istened to the audio of the buy and confirmed that a controlled purchase had occurred, field tested the drugs and confirmed the location of the buy as described by the [informant]. This information provides a substantial basis upon which a trial court could conclude that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found at Appellant's residence. Id. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Thus, we conclude that the trial court's ruling on Appellant's motion was correct as a matter of law. See Lovett v. Commonwealth, 103 S.W.3d 72, 78 (Ky.2003) (holding that while a court may question an informant's motives, an `explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed first-hand, entitles [the informant's] tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case' (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 234, 103 S.Ct. 2317)).