Court Opinion

ID: 9731533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:49:17.381039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:19.407934
License: Public Domain

SEDGWICK, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. While I am in complete agreement with the standard for determining probable cause set forth above by the majority, it is not met in this case.
The affidavit in support of this warrant is based entirely on information from an alleged CRI. There is not one fact from which a magistrate could conclude that the informant was reliable. The only attempt to corroborate the informant’s reliability is the conclusion by the affiant that: “It should be noted that the CRI has been used over several years successfully.”
The majority analogizes the fact situation in United States v. Fleming, 566 F.2d 623 (8th Cir.1977) with the facts in the case before us. They are not analogous. The Fleming search warrant affidavit, sworn to by a deputy sheriff, contained the following statement: “Reliability of informant is based on fact that he has informed on past occasions to the St. Francis County sheriff’s office and the information in the past has always proven correct as to the illegal activity informed on by the informant.” Id. at 624.
In contrast to the present case, in Fleming, the fact of who the informant gave information to, together with the fact that the information correctly related to illegal activity informed on, supplies minimum facts necessary for a magistrate to form an independent judgment on reliability.
The standard of Illinois v. Gates, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), as summarized by Hanson v. State, 344 N.W.2d slip op. 420 at 423 (Minn.App.1984) “[t]here must be sufficient underly*93ing facts so that the magistrate may draw his own conclusions of whether probable cause exists” (emphasis added) does not exist. There being no basis for the search, the evidence seized should be suppressed.