Thе State brings this appeal from the trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion to suppress evidence obtained by the State pursuant to a search warrant. The issue presented here for resolution is the sufficiency of the affidavit to support the search warrant. Held:
The subject affidavit averred that appellee worked at a named garage in Winder, Georgia and was known to drive a red Ford pickup truck. Appellee was alleged to be concealing Valium and cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. In support of this allegation, the affidavit set forth the following information: “Within the past 3 days affiant was contacted by а confidential source it knows to be a concerned citizen, to be known as Source B. Source stated that it had a conversаtion with a second party herein to be known as *505 Source A. Source A told Source B it had been on the above described premises within the past seven days prior to 12 May 1983 and observed a quantity of Valium and a substance it was told to be cocaine. Source A further tоld Source B that it was in a red tool box in Shedds Garage on Candler St. but in the possession of Bobby Hockman who keeps the key. Source B is considered to be reliable because (1) it is a mature person, (2) is gainfully employed, (3) has no criminal record, (4) has been known by affiant for at least 4 years, (5) has given information on at least one occasion which led to the arrest and conviction of 3 peoрle for felony drug charges.
“Source A is considered to be reliable because (1) it is a known associate of Bobby Hockman, (2) has been observed on the premises by Chief Terrell in the past year, (3) does not have a criminal record but is (4) known to associate with suspected drug users, (5) is a known associate of Source B, and (6) did not know Source B would go to law enforcement officers with the above infоrmation.
“In corroboration of the above information, Bobby Hockman is known by Winder police officers to drive a red Ford pickuр and to work at Shedds Garage on W. Candler St.”
Our review of the transcript of the hearing on this matter discloses that the trial judge based his decisiоn on the apparent total lack of verification of the information provided by Source A to Source B. Indeed, under the “two-pronged test” derived from the holdings in Aguilar v. Texas,
It is clear from the affidavit that Source B did nothing to corroborate what Source A had told him. Source B simply relayed the conversation to the affiant police officеr. Compare
State v. Fincher,
supra. The affiant offered as corroboration that Source A did not have a criminal record but was known to associate with suspected drug users. This, however, “is but a bald and unilluminating assertion of suspicion that is entitled to no weight in appraising the magistrate’s decision. [Cit.]” Spinelli v. United States,
Judgment reversed.
Notes
We are mindful of the caveat cited by the Supreme Court of Georgia to the “totality of *507 the circumstances” test that “it is, at heart, a rule of subjectivity. One judge’s ‘probable cause’ can be another judge’s ‘inarticulable suspicion’. . . .” State v. Stephens, supra at 184. In Stephens the Supreme Court noted our “thoughtful assessment” of the affidavit in question but adopted a contrary view as to whether said affidavit was sufficient to show probable cause.