Opinion ID: 480959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Aguilar-Spinelli Two-Pronged Test

Text: 7 In Aguilar, a drug prosecution, the Court ruled that a tip-based warrant could not survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny without judicial consideration of the hearsay problems of perception and veracity. 13 Speaking to the first concern, the Court held that the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that narcotics were where he claimed they were. 14 This requirement, aptly termed the basis of knowledge, 15 called for some description of the informant's means of perception: Did he see, hear, touch or smell the criminal activity or contraband? As for the second concern--veracity--the Court held that the affiant must also present to the magistrate information shoring up the conclusion that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, ... was credible, or his information reliable. 16 The Aguilar affidavit, which stated only that the affiants had received reliable information from a credible person and believed that narcotics ... [were] being kept at the [designated] premises, 17 failed in both respects. 18 8 In Spinelli, the Court addressed the question whether corroborative information gathered by police could cure a tip that failed to meet Aguilar 's double demand. 19 The Court ruled that while supplemental information could possibly vitalize a deficient tip, 20 it did not do so in Spinelli. The effort to corroborate yielded nothing explaining how the informant came by his information or otherwise elevating the tip above a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation, 21 nor did it cast an aura of suspicion over otherwise innocent behavior. 22 Later cases applied the two-pronged test of Aguilar and Spinelli, weighing and sometimes debating the significance of particular circumstances to the demands for perception and veracity. 23 9