Court Opinion

ID: 9727881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:51:57.113645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.090247
License: Public Domain

Allen, C.J.,
dissenting. I do not agree that the words “Within the past four days a reliable informant told me it had gone to the Mark Maguire apartment . . . .” may reasonably be interpreted to mean that the informant had been in Maguire’s apartment within the past four days. “Deference to the magistrate ... is not boundless.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3417 (1984). “Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause . . . .” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239 (1983). Without any information at all concerning the time within which an observation was made, a magistrate is unable to determine the likelihood that evidence is still present in the defendant’s apartment. Therefore, probable cause is absent. King v. State, 410 So. 2d 586, 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (affidavit stating “within the last six days [affiant] met with a confidential and reliable informant who advised [affiant] that ... he observed one Diana King rolling hand-made cigarettes filled with what [the affiant] believed to be cannabis” contained no indication as to when the informant actually observed the incident); Commonwealth v. Tolbert, 492 Pa. 576, 578-79, 424 A.2d 1342, 1343 (1981) (affidavit stating “On 12-1-75 received information from a reliable informant . . . .” held insufficient). But see State v. Williams, 49 N.C. App. 184, 270 S.E.2d 604 (Ct. App. 1980) (magistrate could infer observation was recent where affidavit stated within past 36 to 48 hours informant had contacted affiant and said he had observed hashish in defendant’s apartment), appeal dismissed, review denied, 301 N.C. 726, 276 S.E.2d 287 (1981) (criticized by W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7, at 693 n.52 (1978 & Supp. 1985)). Accordingly, I would reverse.*

 Under United States v. Leon, supra, suppression of the illegally seized evidence at trial would not be required under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution if the police acted in good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. Because this issue was neither briefed nor argued under either the United States or Vermont Constitutions, its applicability to the present case is not addressed.