Court Opinion

ID: 9561576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:12:18.129471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:57.890512
License: Public Domain

Graham, J.,
concurring:
In my opinion the affidavit in question is insufficient under the statute in force at the time because it fails to indicate how the complainant’s confidential informant received his information or why the informant’s sources were reliable if he came about the information indirectly. This factual information must be established under oath before a warrant may issue. Spinelli v. United States, 398 U.S. 410, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637, 89 S. Ct. 584 (1969). However, as pointed out in the opinion of the majority there is nothing in any of the federal decisions to say that such evidentiary facts must appear in the affi*431davit itself where a state warrant is involved. In fact, it may be inferred from certain dicta in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723, 84 S. Ct. 1509 (1964) that where a state warrant is involved extrinsic evidence may be used to show that the warrant was in fact issued upon the establishment of probable cause. See footnote No. 1 of Aguilar which is cited in the majority opinion.
It therefore appears that unless the State statute requires that the affidavit contain all of the grounds necessary to establish probable cause, a procedure for the establishment of the validity of a warrant such as suggested by the Attorney General and referred to in the majority opinion would be sound. I agree with the majority that such procedure is unavailable here because at the time of the search here in question G.S. 15-25.1 required that the grounds for the issuance of the warrant be established in the affidavit. This section has now been replaced by G.S. 15-26 (b) which was effective 19 June 1969 and which requires only that the affidavit indicate the basis for the finding of probable cause.
Because of the wide confusion that now exists with respect to search warrants, I think it important to go further than the majority and express opinion as to the effect of the new statute. In my opinion a warrant, issued pursuant to G.S. 15-26 (b) and after its effective date, which contains or has attached to it an affidavit that fails to include all of the information necessary to establish a finding of probable cause may nevertheless be shown to be sufficient if the affidavit indicates the basis for such a finding.
In my opinion, the affidavit here in question is sufficient to indicate the basis for a finding of probable cause and if the warrant had been issued subsequent to 19 June 1969, I would vote to remand the case for the purpose of allowing the State to present evidence on voir dire, if it could, as to what information was presented under oath to the official issuing the warrant. The burden of establishing the validity of the warrant would be on the State and would be met if the trial court found facts based on competent evidence that would support the following necessary conclusions: (1) That at the time the complainant sought the warrant he was in possession of information sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. (2) That he made this information known under oath or affirmation to the official who issued the warrant. (3) That the issuing official found probable cause for the issuance of the warrant based upon the information given him under oath by the complainant.
The better practice will always be to set forth in the affidavit *432the detailed information comprising the grounds for issuing the warrant. However, if a warrant is in fact obtained without violating any constitutional or statutory provisions the State should be permitted to show as much. Such a procedure finds support in the language of G.S. 15-27 (b) which also became effective 19 June 1969. There it is provided: “No search may be regarded as illegal solely because of technical deviations in a search warrant from requirements not constitutionally required.” As pointed out in the majority opinion there is no constitutional provision requiring that all the grounds necessary for a finding of probable cause be set forth in a written affidavit.