Opinion ID: 396247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 630 warrant.

Text: 14 The appellant contends that the 630 warrant application was insufficient to establish probable cause because it was based on the largely uncorroborated hearsay allegations of an undisclosed informant. 2 We agree and reverse Jeffrey's conviction for simple possession of marijuana based on evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant. An affidavit need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant and may be based on hearsay provided by an unidentified informant. The magistrate must, however, be informed of: 15 (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the (narcotics) were where he claimed they were, and 16 (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant    was credible or his information reliable. 17 Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1513, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). See United States v. Holmes, 594 F.2d 1167, 1170 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 873, 100 S.Ct. 154, 62 L.Ed.2d 100 (1979). 18 The defendant concedes that the basis of knowledge aspect of the Aguilar test has been satisfied by the informant's personal observation of marijuana at Jeffrey Schmidt's house within seventy-two hours prior to the issuance of the warrant. See United States v. Deggendorf, 626 F.2d 47, 51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986, 101 S.Ct. 405, 66 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980); United States v. Fleming, 566 F.2d 623, 625 (8th Cir. 1977). The question is, then, whether the veracity of the informant was substantiated. 19 The veracity of the informant is established under Aguilar when the warrant application indicates that the informant has given reliable information in the past, McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 303-304, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1058, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967); United States v. Skramstad, 649 F.2d 1259, 1262 (8th Cir. 1981), or by a showing that the accuracy of the information was borne out by independent corroboration by the authorities. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 416-417, 89 S.Ct. 584, 589, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313, 79 S.Ct. 329, 333, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); United States v. Hunley, 567 F.2d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 1977). Considering the negligible track record of the informant in tandem with the paucity of detail corroboration here, we find that the 630 warrant falls short of what is required by Spinelli and Aguilar. 20 The government maintains that the statement in the affidavit, that the informant had provided correct information to the police within the past two-week period, was sufficient to establish the informant's track record under Aguilar. This Court encountered an almost identical allegation of veracity in United States v. Skramstad, supra, 649 F.2d at 1262:     the confidential reliable informant (CRI) has also given information on the activities of known narcotics traffickers, which has been corroborated by your affiant. We agree with the Court in Skramstad that such general allegations are uninformative and conclusory and (do) little to establish the reliability of the informant. Id. 3 We further note that there is no indication that the prior information allegedly provided by the informant even involved illegal or incriminating conduct. Id. 21 The government erroneously relies on cases where the affiant involved had also sufficiently detailed and corroborated the information given by the informant. See United States v. Muckenthaler, 584 F.2d 240, 244-245 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Scott, 545 F.2d 38, 40 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1066, 97 S.Ct. 796, 50 L.Ed.2d 784 (1977). Evidence of detail corroboration in the 630 warrant application is limited to the affiant's verification that the house where the informant personally observed the marijuana belonged to Jeffrey Schmidt. This evidence, without more, lacks probative value. See United States v. Skramstad, supra, 649 F.2d at 1260-1262. 4 22