Court Opinion

ID: 9862435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:10:33.937403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:33.262543
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority characterization of the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant in this case. When reading the affidavit in its entirety, it becomes quite clear that the affiant was representing to the trial court that the information received from an informant was thought by the affiant to be reliable because the caller described the crime in detail including the fact that credit cards had been taken. The officer felt the information was reliable based upon what he knew at that time concerning the crime. However, he did not know that credit cards had been taken and he called the victims to verify that such had occurred. This strengthened his conclusion that the information was reliable. Nowhere in his affidavit does he represent that he knew the caller.
The majority opinion speculates that the caller might have heard about the crime from other sources. However, the affiant states that the crime had not received publicity. The precise and accurate detail of the crime recited to the officer by the informant is quite sufficient to support the affi-ant's statement that the information was reliable and to support the issuance of the warrant.
The trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained in the search.