Court Opinion

ID: 9711283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:28:19.382747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.373253
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice
dissenting.
In McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62, Officer Jackson received a tip from an informant that McCray was selling narcotics in the vicinity of a particular street corner. The officer went to the location and observed McCray make several contacts with people walking along the street, and when McCray saw the police, he quickly walked away between two buildings. The police then moved in and arrested him, finding heroin in a cigarette package.
The evidence establishing reliability of the informant was summarized as follows.
Jackson testified that he had been acquainted with the informant for approximately a year, that during this period the informant had supplied him with information about narcotics activities “fifteen, sixteen times at least,” that the information had proved to be accurate and had resulted in numerous arrests and convictions.
McCray, 386 U.S. at 303, 87 S.Ct. at 1058, 18 L.Ed.2d at 66.
Here by contrast, Wheelington’s service as an informant was not current, but took place during a prior period of time, and we only know that his information had led to prior arrests. The officer testified that he did not know whether convictions had resulted. I do not think it can be inferred from this showing by the State, that the information previously supplied by Wheel-ington was accurate and that he was therefore a reliable tipster.
The extrinsic facts show a telephone contact as predicted. The conversation does not contain drug-related terms or meaning. The three then arrived at the motel, and walked in. One carried a grocery sack. The three were immediately arrested. There was no conversation regarding the purpose of the visit. The behavior of appellants in making the telephone contact and entering the motel does not, when viewed apart from the statements of Wheelington, bespeak illicit conduct as did the behavior of McCray.
In my view, the police sprung the trap here before they had that kind of knowledge which would warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that appellants were carrying contraband drugs. More knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating an illegal purpose would have been required by a man of reasonable caution, before forming a belief that they were engaged in the handling of contraband drugs. There was therefore no probable cause justifying an arrest. The arrests were therefore illegal and their product should have been suppressed.