Court Opinion

ID: 9591682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:06:39.740553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:27.478517
License: Public Domain

Smith, Justice,
dissenting.
Today’s majority opinion, which reverses a decision of the Court of Appeals mandating suppression of certain seized evidence, is replete with phrases like “practical, common-sense approach,” “subjectivity,” “the outer limit of probable cause,” and protection of Fourth Amendment (Code Ann. § 1-804) values “whenever and *185wherever feasible.” Like Justice Brennan, I am inclined to view such talk as “code words for an overly permissive attitude toward police practices in derogation of the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment [Code Ann. § 1-804].” Illinois v. Gates, — U. S. — (103 SC 2317, 2359, 76 LE2d 527) (1983) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Because I cannot join in this court’s continued erosion of those rights, see LoGiudice v. State, 251 Ga. 711 (309 SE2d 355) (1983) (Smith, J., dissenting); Bothwell v. State, 250 Ga. 573, 580 (300 SE2d 126) (1983) (Smith, J., dissenting), I dissent.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals in this case, not merely because its opinion is a “thoughtful assessment” (as conceded by the majority), but because it is correct. In a careful analysis of the recent Gates decision, Judge Pope wrote:
“While the Supreme Court has retreated from the ‘two-pronged’ Aguilar-Spinelli test... it has by no means emasculated the Fourth Amendment (Code Ann. Ann. § 1-804). Indeed, the court reiterated that ‘(a)n affidavit must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause,’ and ‘wholly conclusory statement(s)’ will not suffice. 51 USLW at 4716. The affidavit must contain sufficient facts to enable the magistrate to make an independent determination of probable cause based upon those facts and ‘reasonable inferences’ drawn from them. Id. ‘Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. In order to ensure that such an abdication of the magistrate’s duty does not occur, courts must continue to conscientiously review the sufficiency of affidavits on which warrants are issued.’ Id. Thus, the same principles which have traditionally constituted the foundation of probable cause determinations continue in force . . . The only difference is that an otherwise sufficient warrant will not be struck down because the affidavit failed to meet one of the Aguilar-Spinelli prongs in isolation.
“In looking to the totality of the facts provided in the affidavit at issue, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, we do not see a substantial basis for concluding that drugs were then on defendant’s premises. The suspicion that drugs were there was founded upon [an informant’s hearsay information alleging] defendant’s suspected drug activity together with his association with another person who was then believed ... to be engaging in a drug transaction. Although it was known that defendant’s associate was in frequent contact with defendant and was seen at defendant’s home several times, and that it was further known or suspected that defendant’s associate had stored the drugs somewhere, there is nothing in the affidavit which supports a finding, factually or *186inferentially, that the drugs were stored at defendant’s home . . .” Stephens v. State, 167 Ga. App. 417, 419-20 (307 SE2d 9) (1983).
This analysis is, in my view, entirely correct. Even disregarding the obvious flaw in the state’s case — that the affidavit contains no facts demonstrating “the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information,” Illinois v. Gates, 103 SC at 2332 — there is likewise nothing in the affidavit to show that there existed “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. The alleged criminal activity was carried out entirely by Duffle, not appellant. Appellant was never seen in possession of illegal drugs; nor was Duffle ever seen carrying drugs when approaching or leaving appellant’s residence. No fact or reasonable inference drawn from a fact contained in the affidavit supports a finding that appellant bought or sold illegal drugs or had stored contraband at his house. The facts linking appellant to Duffle, such as frequent telephone calls and prolonged visits at appellant’s home, are as consistent with innocent activity carried on by friends as they are with criminal activity. One’s prolonged and frequent association with an alleged drug dealer, without more, is insufficient to provide probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. See Thornton v. State, 125 Ga. App. 374 (187 SE2d 583) (1972).
Today’s majority opinion (page 183) asserts that “[t]he showing of probable cause in the present case is of full strength with that of Gates.” This is simply not true. In Gates police received an anonymous letter describing in great detail the Gates’ drug operation, including their method of buying large quantities of drugs in Florida and transporting them back to Illinois. Through vigorous investigation, police were able to corroborate the essential elements of the tip, including “Lance Gates’ flight to Palm Beach, his brief, overnight stay in a motel, and apparent immediate return north to Chicago in the family car, conveniently awaiting him in West Palm Beach, . . .” 103 SC at 2334. These details corroborated facts, set out in the anonymous letter, which supported the conclusion that Gates was actively involved in drug trafficking. The Supreme Court relied heavily on this “independent police work,” as well as the great detail contained in the original tip, in upholding the search warrant issued there. Id.
Here we simply have no facts implicating appellant in illegal conduct, only bare allegations of crime coupled with sightings of appellant in the company of Duffle. Since there are no facts showing illegal behavior by appellant, there could be no corroboration of these facts as in Gates. Thus, the purported showing of probable cause was much weaker here than in Gates, which the majority describes as defining “the outer limit of probable cause.”
*187Although the Gates decision abandoned the traditional Aguilar-Spinelli test for determining the reliability of search warrants issued on hearsay affidavits, that decision should not be read as an invitation to abdicate the judicial duty of reviewing probable cause determinations, as a majority of this court seems to think. See 103 SC at 2332. To my mind the majority opinion leaves very little content in the term “probable cause” for issuance of a search warrant. We dilute the plain words of the Fourth Amendment (Code Ann. § 1-804) when we begin using terms like “fair probability,” “inarticulable suspicion,” and “the outer limit of probable cause.” What is required for issuance of a search warrant is solid probable cause — that is, the justifiable belief that a crime is being or has been committed, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-76 (69 SC 1302, 93 LE 1879) (1949) — not suspicion, speculation, innuendo, guilt by association, or the conclusory assertions of three unnamed, unknown informants not found to be reliable and whose tips were never verified.
The majority’s admonition to issuing magistrates to “make every effort” to employ Aguilar-Spinelli “whenever feasible,” on the one hand, while reversing a lower court decision which strove to safeguard the very values the majority purports to esteem, is a spectacular display of judicial doubletalk. What the majority really seems to be saying to issuing magistrates is this: “Use the Aguilar-Spinelli rules when convenient, otherwise ignore them.” This case is, in my view, another regrettable step toward allowing the state, without reasonable justification, to infringe on the privacy of a freedom-loving people.1
“Rights secured by the Fourth Amendment (Code Ann. § 1-804) are particularly difficult to protect because their ‘advocates are usually criminals’... But the rules ‘we fashion [are] for the innocent and guilty alike’... By replacing Aguilar and Spinelli with a test that provides no assurance that magistrates, rather than the police, or informants, will make determinations of probable cause; imposes no structure on magistrates’ probable cause inquiries; and invites the possibility that intrusions may be justified on less than reliable information from an honest or credible person, today’s decision threatens to ‘obliterate one of the most fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, *188and the police-state, where they are the law.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 103 SC at 2359 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
I can only add that I believe this case is the first of many disasters spawned by Illinois v. Gates, and is a clear example of what happens when courts start “playing around” with the plain dictates of the Constitution. It is a sign of our judicial times that a man can be convicted based on an uncorroborated tip from an anonymous informant in which the only illegal activities described are those of a third person. One must look long and hard at the “totality of the circumstances” to see probable cause in this situation. With all the important issues facing this court, why should we publish an opinion so non-instructive and inconclusive as to require a disclaimer like the one contained in the last two paragraphs of the majority opinion? The law enforcement officers and magistrates of this state, who are charged with conforming their conduct to the dictates of the Constitution, deserve more guidance than this court is willing to give. I respectfully dissent.

 This court is free, under the Georgia Constitution, to reject the “rule” of Illinois v. Gates and retain the Aguilar-Spinelli framework for reviewing hearsay affidavits offered to support the issuance of search warrants. See LoGiudice v. State, 251 Ga. 711, 715 n.6 (309 SE2d 355) (1983) (Smith, J., dissenting).