 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State3/31/2004
28's assertion that Smith was acquainted with Aparicio. (The police surveillance also tended to show that Smith was acquainted with Wilshusen, even though N-428 never asserted this.) But the fact that Smith was acquainted with people who sold drugs was not a sufficient basis for the issuance of the warrant.
The State argues that N-428's credibility was established by Haight's assertion that N-428 had worked for the drug team "off and on" for twelve years, and that N-428 had "a very good track record all over the State of Alaska, ... from Kodiak to several places in Southeast Alaska". But this sort of conclusory assertion of an informant's credibility is not sufficient to satisfy Aguilar-Spinelli's second prong. See Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3rd ed. 1996), § 3.3(b), Vol. 2, pp. 104-121.
LaFave explains that unsupported declarations that a police informant is "credible" or "reliable" do not overcome the Aguilar- Spinelli presumption that such informants are untrustworthy. Id. at 104. Rather, the police must present evidence from which the magistrate can independently conclude that the informant is trustworthy - assertions that the informant's information has led to convictions in the past, or has led to the discovery of firm evidence of criminal activity, or has otherwise proved objectively reliable. Id. at 104-09. Here, the police failed to provide the magistrate with any specific details of N-428's past activities, or the favorable results of N-428's past activities, to support Haight's unelaborated assertion that N-428 had a "good track record".
The State also argues that N-428's assertions concerning Smith were independently corroborated by information that the police received from two other informants.
As we explained above, Haight told the magistrate that, approximately two or three months before the warrant application, the police received a tip from a woman who wished to remain anonymous. This woman told the police that "Blaine Smith was heavily involved in drug trafficking". Haight also told the magistrate that this woman had "described some of [Smith's] activities". But Haight did not give the magistrate any details of what the woman told the police, other than to say:
They sent the money south. $15,000, I believe - it was sent south. They definitely made a trip from Haines.
Even though Haight was supposedly relating the woman's description of Smith's activities, Haight did not use the pronoun "he", but rather "they". Nor did Haight ever tell the magistrate which people this "they" referred to. Indeed, it appears that Haight was talking about two people other than Smith - for, a little later in the warrant application hearing, Haight told the magistrate that the police had knowledge of a trip that suspected drug dealers had made south from Haines, but the suspects were Wilshusen and his girlfriend, not Smith.
Moreover, even if the magistrate could reasonably conclude that the anonymous woman had told the police that Smith was involved in drug trafficking and that, at some point in time, Smith had sent $15,000 to some location to the south (a description that applies to over ninety-five percent of the inhabited locations on the earth), the fact remains that this woman was an anonymous informant of unknown credibility, and her main assertion about Smith - that he was "heavily involved in drug trafficking" - was completely conclusory.
This leaves the information that the police received from a second police informant. According to Haight, this informant had made a purchase of methamphetamine sometime before the warrant application hearing - and, as the informant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|