Opinion ID: 1658441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was the search of the house valid?

Text: Drane advances two arguments here. The first need not detain us long. It asserts that the search of the house would never have come about unless marijuana had been found in the truck, and that since the search of the truck was improper, the evidence found later at the house was inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963). However, since we are holding that the search of the truck was valid, a fortiori we must hold that it did not envenom the evidence seized at the house. In the alternative, Drane argues that the warrant for the search of the house was not based on reliable information and therefore lacked probable cause. Specifically, he argues that in issuing the warrant the magistrate relied not only on the first-hand knowledge of the affiants, but on certain information, provided by other sources, which pertained to the occupancy of Deerfield Plantation and to Mary Boudreaux' history as a drug user. Appellant argues that this information was in the nature of mere suspicion, and was thus insufficient to support a warrant. The briefs discuss this issue in terms of the familiar two-prong test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). This test is no longer the law. The U.S. Supreme Court recently adopted a new approach emphasizing the totality of the circumstances. The court summarized its new doctrine as follows: The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances 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 case. ( Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1983)). Mississippi quickly adopted the Gates doctrine for state law purposes, Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674, 676 (Miss. 1983), and has adhered to it since, e.g. Breckenridge v. State, 472 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss. 1985). Of particular interest is Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087 (Miss. 1985). In that case, the data contained in the affidavit was not, in itself, sufficient to supply probable cause, but the warrant was upheld because the magistrate also relied on information supplied to him orally. There is little doubt that the warrant in the present case was supported by probable cause. The issuing magistrate knew from the affidavits that marijuana had been found in the truck. He also knew, from the testimony of other law enforcement officials, that the Drane family owned Deerfield Plantation, that Robert Drane was en route from the plantation to Natchez when his truck was seized, and that his companion was a known drug abuser. To use the language of Gates, he was certainly justified in concluding that there was a fair probability that more drugs could be found at the plantation. The issuance of the warrant was therefore proper.