Court Opinion

ID: 9455176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:13:30.641323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:29.365661
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellee’s petition for rehearing, in addition to taking the inexcusable liberty of stating, three times, that we decided the case on a ground that we specifically said we did not, exhibits a misconception that we think calls for a substantive reply. Appellee concedes that there was a “possibility” that the essential affidavit was based on hearsay, but says that the magistrate was warranted in concluding otherwise, and that it was “hypertechnieal” and “speculative” for us to say he could not. What appellee forgets is that the issuance of a warrant requires a showing of probable cause. This means that the moving party has a burden of proof. If an affidavit is blind as to whether it is based on hearsay or not, that burden is not met. Any other rule would permit the party seeking a warrant, and having only hearsay, to leave the affidavit blind, and hope for the best. It is not to be forgotten that if the information is reliable, or based upon other than hearsay, it is very easy *352for the party who is seeking the warrant, and who has complete control over what he chooses to produce, to say so.
The petition for rehearing is denied.