Opinion ID: 863607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying edwards' motion to suppress?

Text: ś 33. Edwards contends the evidence found in the bucket found outside his trailer and the questioning of Edwards by the sheriff which led to the discovery of the bodies and other evidence in the case was inadmissible because it was seized pursuant to a search warrant issued without probable cause. Edwards contends that the factual basis for the affidavit contained several false and misleading statements. Furthermore, he asserts that even with the false material set aside, the remaining content, together with the sworn oral testimony presented to the issuing magistrate, was insufficient to establish probable cause. ś 34. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the United States Supreme Court established a totality of the circumstances standard for determining the existence of probable cause: 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. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527. We adopted the Gates totality of the circumstances test in Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674, 676 (Miss.1983) and have applied it in numerous subsequent cases. Petti v. State, 666 So.2d 754, 757 (Miss.1995); Roberson v. State, 595 So.2d 1310, 1317 (Miss.1992); Seales v. State, 495 So.2d 475, 478 (Miss.1986); Harper v. State, 485 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Miss.1986); Drane v. State, 493 So.2d 294, 298-99 (Miss.1986); Garvis v. State, 483 So.2d 312, 314 (Miss.1986); Walker v. State, 473 So.2d 435, 438 (Miss.1985); Breckenridge v. State, 472 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss.1985); McCommon v. State, 467 So.2d 940, 941 (Miss.1985); Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Miss.1985). ś 35. In reviewing the magistrate's finding, the Court does not determine de novo whether probable cause existed. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 732-33, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984); Harper v. State, 485 So.2d 1064, 1065-66 (Miss.1986). Rather, its task as a reviewing court is to insure that there was a substantial basis for the magistrate's determination of probable cause. Id. ś 36. Viewing the facts in the record in light of this standard, we find in the affidavit a substantial basis for the magistrate's determination that probable cause existed. Specifically, the affidavit revealed that Detective Burnham had received information from a source who gave Edwards' name and the location of his trailer. The caller stated that Edwards was bragging about killing the man from whom he stole stereo equipment. This would be similar stereo equipment that was determined to be missing from Tony Roberts' burned car. The affidavit also disclosed that the informant had seen certain items at the trailer that were similar to items missing from the burned car owned by Tony Roberts. Setting the false material aside-sheriff stating that the caller did not leave a name when in fact the caller stated that his name was Kevin Costner-the affidavit's remaining content, together with the sworn oral testimony presented to the issuing magistrate, is sufficient to establish probable cause. Petti v. State, 666 So.2d at 758. These facts provided a substantial basis for the magistrate's determination that probable cause existed. ś 37. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, and there is no reversible error.