Court Opinion

ID: 9454707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:55:48.916415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:15.542405
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Convictions on various counts which do not rest upon evidence obtained under the search warrant support the sentences imposed. I concur in affirmance as to those counts.
I respectfully disagree with the decision that the affidavit used in obtaining the search warrant was sufficient.
In the affidavit the federal agent asserted reason to believe that narcotics were being concealed in the Stallings apartment and sold unlawfully. The affidavit continues:
“And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows : during the past two months, periodic surveillance has established the presence of known narcotic traffickers at the residence of John Doe a/k/a Eddie Stallings, 2850% N. Central Avenue (upstairs) (north apartment), Indianapolis, Indiana, and that John Doe a/k/a Eddie Stallings has been selling heroin hydrochloride and cocaine during this time to an informant of the Indianapolis Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Further that said John Doe a/k/a Eddie Stallings told the informant he was preparing to travel to Chicago, Illinois, on or about February 23,1967, to replenish his supply of heroin and cocaine. That the informant advised Det. Lt. Jones and Agent Rankin at approximately 12 o’clock noon on February 23, 1967, John Doe a/k/a Eddie Stallings had departed Indianapolis, Indiana during the early morning hours of February 23, 1967, enroute to Chicago, Illinois to obtain narcotic drugs because he was out of cocaine and that John Doe a/k/a Eddie Stall-ings drove to Chicago, Illinois in a white 1966 Cadillac automobile, bearing 1967 Indiana license of 49Z3331, said ownership of which is registered to Sarah Stallings, 2850% N. Central, Indianapolis, Indiana.”
*208Aguilar v. Texas 1 requires that where an affidavit is based on hearsay information “the magistrate must be informed of * * * some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant * * * was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable’.”
The affidavit above quoted seems to be deficient in this respect.

. (1964), 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 12 L.Ed.2d 723.