Court Opinion

ID: 9716332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:34:29.623808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:43.980864
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE LEIGHTON, dissenting: The search warrant in this case was quashed because the trial court found, as defendant had argued, that the affidavit which supported the application did not state the underlying circumstances which show that the informer knew defendant had cocaine in his home. In the trial court and before us, defendant has argued that the affidavit did not state nor allege any facts from which it could be found that the informer used, tested or by some other way determined that what he had obtained from defendant and what he had seen in his possession was cocaine. The underlying circumstances described in the affidavit were that, according to the informer, he “* * * was in the 2nd floor front apt. located at 918 N. Pulaski Road and while there purchased a tin foil packet of cocaine from male Mexican known as Joe Garcia as above described for the sum' of $50.00 USC,” and that, according to affiant, “[r] eliable police informer has been a user of cocaine drugs for the past eight years and should be considered an expert as to what cocaine is the feeling received from taking the cocaine [sic].” My reading of this affidavit leads me to observe a lack of factual allegations which told the issuing magistrate how the informer claimed the ability, from purchase alone, to identify what he had purchased and, without more, to tell it was cocaine. Affiant did not say who told him that the informer was an expert on cocaine. Therefore, I disagree with the opinion of the majority. In my judgment, the construction placed on this affidavit stretches it beyond its allegations. Moreover, in my mind its validity is serious impaired because it concludes with the bald statement that “[tjhis building was kept under surveillance on 12 November 1972 by Inv. R. McKelvey who observed many males and females of Spanish descent entering and emerging from said apt. [sic] 6 * *.” Exactly how a person can keep a building under surveillance and still see people of a given nationality enter and leave an apartment on the second floor is left to the imagination. I believe that the affidavit of a police officer who applies for a warrant to search a home in reliance on the hearsay of an undisclosed informer should not contain statements whose factual bases have to be imagined. An application for a search warrant may be supported by an affidavit based on hearsay information furnished by an informant; but such an affidavit must tell the issuing magistrate the underlying circumstances of the hearsay information. (Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108, 114, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 84 S.Ct. 1509; Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, 89 S.Ct. 584.) And, as the majority points out, affidavits for search warrants should be interpreted in a realistic manner, not tested by elaborately technical requirements. In fact, I have had occasion to say this for the court. (See People v. Peavy, 1 Ill.App.3d 478, 274 N.E.2d 892.) But the requirement that every search warrant affidavit state the underlying circumstances of such hearsay as it may contain is not a technical one; it is constitutionally mandated. See Nathanson v. United States (1933), 290 U.S. 41, 78 L.Ed. 159, 54 S.Ct. 11; Giordenello v. United States (1958), 357 U.S. 480, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503, 78 S.Ct. 1245. The majority holds that this constitutional mandate is satisfied because the affidavit in this case described the informer as a cocaine addict and stated he purchased a tin foil of that drug from defendant for $50. As I understand it, my brethren in the majority indulge in the theory that an affidavit which states that the informer is an addict, and that he purchased the drug of his addiction, furnishes an issuing judge with sufficient information on which to find that the addict knew what he purchased was the drug to which he was addicted. People v. Ranson, 4 Ill.App.3d 953, 282 N.E.2d 462, and People v. Rivera, 130 Ill.App.2d 321, 264 N.E.2d 699, are cited in support of this theory. These cases do not support the proposition for which they are cited. In fact, the issue raised by defendant in this case; that is, that the affidavit was constitutionally deficient because it did not show the underlying circumstances from which the informer learned the information he later furnished, was not present either in Ranson or in Rivera. In both cases, the issue was reliability of the informer, not whether the affidavit contained the underlying circumstances of the hearsay information. In determining the constitutional sufficiency of an affidavit to support issuance of a search warrant, I think it is important to remember that in this State the only remedy available to a citzen whose home is searched by a warrant obtained through a false affidavit is prosecution for perjury. (See People v. Bak, 45 Ill.2d 140, 258 N.E.2d 341; People v. Mitchell, 45 Ill.2d 148, 258 N.E.2d 345.) However, for an aggrieved citizen to have this remedy, the affidavit in support of a search warrant must be such that, if false, it will support a prosecution for perjury. (People v. Sovetsky, 343 Ill. 583, 175 N.E. 844.) It must appear that through the affidavit, affiant willfully, corruptly and falsely testified before the issuing magistrate on a matter material to the issue or point in question. See People v. Glenn, 294 Ill. 333, 128 N.E. 532; compare Loraitis v. Kukulka, 1 Ill.2d 533, 116 N.E.2d 329. A prosecution for a perjury, however, cannot be predicated on a belief, even though the belief be unfounded in fact and law. (People v. Hartfield, 94 Ill.App.2d 421, 237 N.E.2d 193.) Therefore, in this case, if it were proven that affiant’s statements concerning the informer’s acquaintance with drugs and his knowledge of cocaine were false, there could riot be a prosecution for perjury. The affidavit did not factually state how affiant learned that the informer had used cocaine for 8 years or who considered him an expert on the drug. As we said in People v. Young, 4 Ill.App.3d 602, 279 N.E.2d 392, “[f]or aH that appears, affiant was relying, not ori what he was told by some reliable person; he was repeating rumor and gossip.” (4 Ill.App.3d 602, 605.) Thus, if called upon, affiant could say that the statements made to the issuing magistrate were based on beliefs, ones he acquired from rumor and gossip concerning the informer in question that circulated around his police station. For these reasons, I conclude that the affidavit in this case was constitutionally deficient and thát the trial court ruled correctly when it ordered the search warrant quashed. Therefore,.I respectfrilly dissent from the reversal of that order.