Court Opinion

ID: 9694117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:24:42.148602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:56.628381
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I reluctantly agree with the majority opinion. We have to review this on the cold record. As Dunn, J., notes, the magistrate did examine the affiant further, although I cannot say that it was a searching examination. He testified that no information was forthcoming that was not in the affidavits. Unfortunately no record could be made of the examination but, if anything further was unearthed, supplemental affidavits could easily have been prepared and filed.
And what of the witness waiting in the wings? I don’t consider what he could have testified to appropriate for discussion on the question of adequacy of the showing for issuance of the warrant. His testimony is noteworthy only to show that the state apparently had additional information that was withheld. Apparently the state’s attorney was willing to gamble on the skimpiest showing that he could get by with.
I fully appreciate that the magistrate was apparently not satisfied with the affidavits and took the initiative to conduct a hearing. However, absent some record of additional information to meet the Aguilar-Spinelli test, I would not hold that to be a cure for insufficient affidavits. Otherwise, every magistrate could merely place affi-ants under oath, conduct a cursory examination off the record, and defendant’s *580rights to challenge the sufficiency of the affidavits would be wiped out.
The Aguilar-Spinelli test is mandated by federal decisions 1 under the United States Constitution. This court is at liberty to impose stricter standards under the South Dakota Constitution2 but we are not at liberty to impose lesser standards than the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.
I am authorized to state that Justice PORTER joins in this special concurrence.

. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969).

. State v. Opperman, S.D., 247 N.W.2d 673 (1976).