State v. Lang

Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE of

Gary LANG, Gray, Alan aka Dave

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14346.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Nov. Hamlin, Boise, for defendant-

Robert G. appellant. Thomas, Gen., E. Jones, Lynn

Jim Atty. Stahman, Gen., Deputy A.I. Myrna Sol. Gen., Boise, plaintiff-respondent. Atty. HUNTLEY, Justice.

By this we are asked to appeal, re-evalu- ate the by magistrates standard used determining state of Idaho in the exist- ence of cause for issuance of warrants, light search decision Supreme the United Court in Illinois Gates,-U.S.-, 2317, 76 103 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 527 Gates abandoned cause estab- two-pronged Texas, Aguilar lished in 378 U.S. Spi- States, nelli v. United (1969),in favor of the 21 L.Ed.2d 637 more the circumstanc- “totality of flexible es” analysis. unreasonable against

The guarantee I, search article 17 of the and seizure substantially the same Constitution as the of the Fourth parallel provisions United States Constitu Amendment to tion; nevertheless, it is for this court to relax the standard for decide whether probable cause in ac demonstration cord recent U.S. with most decision, whether to retain the or Aguilar Spi criteria of protective more as our test.1 progeny nelli their 41(c). The rule of codified in Idaho R.Crim.P. has been applica- with the real-life agent Douglas experience J. Our On October two-pronged Aguilar of the test of and Bureau of Narcotics tion Williams of the Idaho Spinelli unduly leads us to conclude that its tipa from Drug Enforcement received and restricts the work of law approach technical The woman anonymous an female caller. enforcement, affording without a concom- left that Gary Lang stated that had Boise protection mitant enhancement of from un- Florida, Orlando, for where he was morning and reasonable search seizure. The “totali- five to six ounces of going purchase approach the circumstances” ty of encunci- that he would be travel- cocaine. She said Gates, with together interposi- ated in the flight on a ling under an assumed name magistrate tion of a between officer and Denver, Colorado, Airport from the Boise guar- citizen will secure the constitutional Delta connecting flight with a on Airlines antee, insuring while that inferences from also reported to Orlando. The informant are drawn a neutral and the evidence green Volkswagen owned a 1971 Lang mind, being judged by “instead of detached parked which would be in “Bug” automobile competitive in the often engaged the officer Airport. the at the Boise long-term lot She ferreting out crime.” See enterprise of personal said this information from her was States, Johnson v. United knowledge. ap- (1948). 92 L.Ed. S.Ct. Agent pursued Williams and tip spent the the magistrate the affords proach Gates that afternoon and evening verifying common- practical, “to make a opportunity information. Volkswagen He found a 1971 whether, all the cir- given sense decision Bug long-term airport lot at the and in the affidavit cumstances set forth a license check of Motor Department him, ‘veracity’ and ‘basis including Vehicles regis- revealed that the car was hearsay supplying knowledge’ persons

tered to the defendant. at Upon inquiring information, probability is a fair there counter, Republic Airlines ticket he dis- a crime will be or evidence of contraband before, day covered that one ticket for Gates, 103 particular place.” in a found Orlando, Denver, connecting via with the We 76 L.Ed.2d at 548. thus at Airlines, flight on Delta had been sold. The and Aguilar the test of abandon himself as Dave purchaser had identified “totality circumstanc- adopt the ticket was used on the morn- Gray, and by which analysis as the standard es” October 24th. It was further estab- ing of will determine the of Idaho ex- magistrates person one travelled from lished that cause. probable istence flight on that and route on Boise to Orlando today represents major a Our decision Williams also went Agent that date. seizure; in our law of search and how- shift residence, re- where there was no Lang’s ever, no a purpose would be served on the door. He also to his knock sponse lengthy exposition reasoning of the behind box post mail in the noticed uncollected policy change, arguments as all the Lang. Finally, agent Gary addressed to reviewed the United States thoroughly by of the defendant photograph obtained a Supreme Court Gates. a from the description of his vital statistics Bureau. Criminal Identification findings reviewing ensur Based is limited recital, on the our function agent magistrate, above Wil- liams had a substantial completed sought ing affidavit and warrant from concluding magistrate. Probable 2332, 76 at cause was determined to exist and a war- existed. Moreover, deference containing great rant a detailed description of at 548. review authorizing Lang search of determinations per- his such paid is to be 419, 89 at U.S. any bags possession son and his Spinelli, was courts. ing 645; at The warrant was issued. executed Idaho, cocaine, among return to Lang’s Oropeza, did items, found and seized. We find that other was so, is saying for his without finding have substantial basis believe that this cause in the case bar. The of our cases which retreating from opinion Court Gates two-pronged have reliance placed compelling authority in this particularly was But I Spinelli. regard, considering striking parallels have never this Court should convinced that the facts instant case and between ever Aguilar-Spinelli to the bowed down in Gates. those when in than the first other place,1 Gates, challenges, passing in the law enforcement official As on fourth amendment an anonymous tip detailing drug received which is say Aguilar-Spinelli that the and narcotics crimes. 103 S.Ct. at 17 1, test does not ipso apply facto to art. § 2325, 76 L.Ed.2d at Both tips included of Constitution, the Idaho than that other variety details, describing future activi- this Court chooses to apply interpret and ties of third parties easily which are not 1, art. 17 as the the High Court does predictable, easily as well as obtained facts. fourth amendment the federal constitu See id. 103 2335, S.Ct. at 76 L.Ed.2d at 552. tion. Likewise, the in information reference to Basically, my premise is that su- state existing by agent facts Wil- was verified preme obliged courts are parrot the liams the future behavior described Supreme the Court of United States, but tipster Id., occurred as 103 predicted. rather least should be at somewhat inclined at 76 L.Ed.2d at 551-552. Gates thinking individualistic and judgment. has reiterated the value of corroboration of just past the decade the High tip details of an by independent informant’s led on a fifty states merry chase indeed Id., work. 76 in extremely critical area of capital L.Ed.2d at 550. The destination of the sus- As Justice sentencing. Shepard this Florida, pect each case was further bol- eloquently phrased Court so his concern: stering the finding of cause. “With all deference being site, addition to popular vacation our respect to Florida is well brethren on the known as a source of narcot- Bench of the United ics and other drugs. Id. 103 S.Ct. at States I can regret I that 76 Applying totality of neither understand what said they have facts, circumstances analysis court, these as a where they now as stand we conclude that a substantial for the court or they where this may be going magistrate’s finding ex- important capi- area of the law involving isted. tal cases and the death penalty.” judgment trial court is af- v. Lindquist, State 99 Idaho firmed. 110 (1979). High The judgments handed down DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD and per- area earlier this leaves year BAKES, JJ., concur. IIB, haps Part muddier it was. See BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. Marshall, by Jus- opinion joined of Justice - tice Brennan, Stephens, v. Zant four Only justices joined the Gates opin- (1983): -, 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d

ion Justice Rehnquist which authored. Al- for, Georgia stands “If v. Gregg this is though opinion is now law insofar all permitted well be concerned, as may as the fourth amendment it is that were on the books law, barely the and I no re-enact statutes compelling see much have said as I for this court precipitately reason to so rush before Furman.” Sivak, Idaho 674 P.2d to embrace the espoused, views therein if in State Creech, majority doing fact so. I today do 396 and State my predated arrival embracing (1976), on the Court. 1. The total of those cases occurred Oropeza, 545 P.2d 475 showing some warrant, I also P.2d 463 where suance may be pre-Furman which an inference stat- from out Idaho’s facts pointed utes, case-law applied under Court’s is credible the informant drawn that have met consitutional mus- holdings would in a was obtained information that his handed down opinions ter under the con way. The Court correctly reliable (which opinions precipi- Court in 1976 lower fact some with the cerned pushing into attorney general tated Idaho’s Aguilar-Spi applying been have courts present scheme through manner. I be unduly rigid nelli of his constitu- deprives an accused however, with clarification lieve, determined right tional to have his fate corroborating information rule of a jury). fully properly able to lower courts problem have some Today, while I do and avoid such Aguilar-Spinelli interpret the trial conclusion that with the Court’s I applications. unduly-rigid err, which is reached under judge did not may prove to be ultimately wrong; Gates, of “totality” the new rule supposedly instruction only profitable the that case the other why I am unable to see wholly magistrates rely to is to provide we can to members of the Court fail consider question But sense. common on White, of Justice better-reasoned views anonymous tip pro particular a whether Court, who, joining judgment of warrant for issuance of a the basis vides separately wrote that: one, and I would a difficult will often be precise more attempt provide at least “Thus, majority opinion, as I read the it by clarifying Aguilar-Spinelli guidance appears question whether cases with relationship of those and probable cause standard is to be diluted is re abdicating our totally Draper left judgments to the common-sense of Hence, in the area. I do sponsibility issuing magistrates. I am reluctant rejecting opinion join the Court’s approve any standard that does not ex- Aguilar-Spinelli rules.”2 pressly a to is- require, prerequisite as Shepard, dissenting Oropeza insuf- affidavit at issue here to be determined Justice cast applica- showing probable an ominous shadow over this Court’s as cause. In Jones ficient Aguilar-Spinelli States, in that supra, tion of the a an affidavit for v. United anticipated its eventual and at the same time rejection: receipt search warrant indicated infor- by person. mation an unnamed There it was hearsay although clear that information re- “It is held that the affidavit did not set may furnish suffi- from an informer personal (as ceived out affiant’s observations con- probable of a cient cause for the issuance personal trasted with the assertion of knowl- States, v. United 362 U.S. warrant. 257, Jones here), (here, edge nevertheless other sources 725, (1960); 697 Unit- 80 4 L.Ed.2d surveillance) provided a substantial Ventresca, 102, 380 U.S. 85 S.Ct. ed States v. crediting hearsay. In United 741, (1965); United States v. 13 L.Ed.2d 684 Ventresca, 102, States v. 380 U.S. 85 S.Ct. Harris, 29 (1965), 684 an affidavit for a 13 L.Ed.2d Searches, Varón, (1971). Sei- 723 receipt warrant indicated the of hear- search (2nd 1974). As- zures and Immunities suming ed. say but such was deemed suffi- information Aguilar maintain and strong because of the factual back- cient (See vitality following 40 Fordham Harris hearsay ground which buttressed the and Review, 687), only teaching of those Law probable cause. Some combined to establish hearsay supplied cases is that information opinion argue that the of the commentators a casual an informer must be more than Harris, supra, States v. has to court United circulating rumor or an in the underworld Aguilar the decisions in some extent blunted merely accusation on an individual’s based any Spinelli, but in event Harris held general regarding reputation. Statements premised on information received an affidavit reliability must be more of an informer provided unknown informer suffi- from an nature, Spinelli, merely conclusory probable issuance of a cause for the cient underlying and these must set forth such of the totali- warrant in consideration search necessary judge the circumstances as are ty used to which were the circumstances conclusion, Aguilar. validity of the informer’s meeting the stan- evaluate an affidavit nothing “I the decisions of find probable cause. dards for requires the U.S. Court

687 - -, Illinois v. probable cause became ‘substantial evi ” 2317, 2350-51, dence.’ (footnotes omitted) added). (emphasis State, 45, 53, Jacobsen v. 99 Idaho Bistline, J.). (1978) (opinion White, I, Being of same mind as Justice too, footnote, am not moved to so in a totally Although majority today, abdicate our rule, 41(c) responsibility regard, in the area. In that that the Court’s I.C.R. declares I my Aguilar Spinelli, view is fortified chase” a am “merry codification mentioned, strengthened family above further a unable to see much of a resemblance. strong Arregui belief that should not I see more of in Idaho Criminal allow readily 41(e) 4(e) itself to be so than I do of influenced Rules Wilcox, bare 99 Idaho majority opinion Spinelli. Struve when it noted is this a 4-1 Court Court which has the sole 579 P.2d responsibility where our own Idaho Consti- that: concerned,

tution is Long here art. year in the same “[T]his intervened, before the Warren Court improved the Uniform Idaho so, properly in the area of constitutional by adding Extradition Act Section rights for accused the Idaho courts persons, hear- safeguard and the legislatures were forerun- ing, handed down the landmark decision ners. P. Arregui, Arregui 52 A.L.R. 463 jurisdiction,

“In this been always un- conviction based evidence seized necessary to establish cause as a purported authority der the of a search condition precedent the issuance warrant was reversed for the lack of warrant person arrest and detain a or cause the issuance of probable justifying property. Arregui, seize his State a warrant. In that case it was made 43, 254 P. 788 a search will not conclusory clear statements warrant this held that Court justify finding probable suffice. To a affidavit must set forth and disclose some the affiant must disclose per- cause some personal knowledge of the underlying knowledge underlying sonal of the facts facts; the conclusions to be drawn there forth, and and set them ‘conclusions must from are for the magistrate to draw. magistrate be drawn and not underlying facts must be ‘sufficient 63, the affiant.’ Id. 254 P. at upon probable which to find cause for the issuance of the necessary warrant....’ ‘It is not the facts be Arregui, upon id. at 254 P. at 794. In the sufficient which a verdict to base I.C.R.[3] promulgation jury, they of Rule ‘suffi but sufficient must be for justify finding upon cient evidence’ to a which to find cause probable magis- “It is well-established that in an evaluation “there was substantial basis [the proba- were of an affidavit to determine the existence of to conclude that narcotics trate] ”’ probable great bly present.” cause deference should be magistrate 393-94, paid at 481-82. of the and his the decision Idaho at be restricted. common sense should not gov- governs Rule 3. Rule 4 warrants. arrest States, supra; States Jones v. United United entirely Although not erns warrants. search Ventresca, Spinel- supra. As was stated in alike, language: “The both use this identical Harris, policeman’s ‘A li and reiterated in finding probable be based shall cause entry judged affidavit should not be as an hearsay may evidence, substantial which essay Aguilar, stated in contest.’ As was part provided there is a substantial whole or in ‘Thus, magis- a a when search is based believing there is a factual basis for trate’s rather than a officer’s determi- (That I cite the furnished.” for the information cause, probable reviewing nation of any evidencing as be seen rules should “judicial- accept courts will evidence of a less constitutionally en- belief that ly competent persuasive or character Since 1864 of substantive law. the field tered justified acting would have an officer in on governing provided the law legislature has warrant,” ibid., his own without a and will Code.) Title Ch. search warrants. judicial long sustain the determination so (that must, the issuance of the warrant crime 19-4404. The warrant, issuing the examine on oath being committed).’ Id. witnesses he complainant later, in years promul- “This Court 45 may produce, depositions and take their gating Rules of Criminal Practice and and cause them to be sub- writing, Procedure, incorporated spirit and in- parties making scribed them. (note tent of I.C. 19-505 and 19-506 § § 19-4405. The must set depositions supra) into Rule which a requires tending forth the facts to establish the finding probable cause before a re- probable or grounds application, quested may arrest warrant issue.” believing they cause for exist. (foot- 99 Idaho at 579 P.2d at 1194 thereup- If 19-4406. omitted). note on satisfied of the existence of paid The Court not homage Arregui, or that grounds application, but also to a which in the same there cause to believe their probable year provided hearing existence, he a search war- must issue which was not part parcel.of the Uni- rant, him with his name of signed by form opinion, Extradition Act. In that office, county, in his peace to a officer with probable dealt cause for is- commanding him forthwith to search warrants, suance of arrest named, for the person place or statutory footnote 11 also noted as well the property specified, bring and to it be- to the issuance of requirements prerequisite ” magistrate.’ fore the search warrants: 210-11, 99 Idaho at at 1193-94. 579 P.2d first ter- passage “Since the of Idaho’s that which the Hopefully Court said ritorial criminal code in our statutes and that I wrote in Jacobsen Struve judicial finding have officer’s required may mag- have been of some benefit to the cause as essential to effect to issue war- requested istrates who person property seizure of a or his with- rants, have them from guided violating out the United Constitu- in an ri- “applying Aguilar-Spinelli unduly tion, Amendment, Fourth and the Idaho manner.” gid Constitution, art. 19-505 I.C. §§ White, J.). (opinion L.Ed.2d at 571 govern and 506 warrants of arrest and to both our Idaho giving due consideration provide: constitutions, all that the federal and forth deposition ‘19-505. must set The require that magistrate that the required is prosecutor and by facts stated underlying with sufficient presented he be witnesses, tending his to establish facts, properly drawn which with inferences guilt and commission of the offense therefrom, conclusions substantiate of the defendant. requesting —not is satisfied 19-506. If the That is the mes- officer —draws therefrom. complained therefrom that the offense lan- plain is the and that sage Arregui committed, of has been and that there Code, has been since and of the Idaho guage that the ground reasonable to believe Legisla- the Territorial meeting the first it, must defendant has committed he ture in 1864. issue a warrant of arrest.’ has that what Now, well be may very 19-4403, 4404, gov- I.C. 4405 and 4406 §§ Idaho, as evidence rule in ever been the ern provide: search warrants and Arregui and the Idaho statutes both newly discovered is in essence opinion, ‘19-4403. A search warrant can not be “totality of cause, of the Gates upon probable sup- issued but doctrine Court — is to so, that Court If then affidavit, naming or describ- circumstances.” ported by with the itself aligning ing person, particularly de- be commended and this views of the Idaho scribing property place and the But it should Arregui. as set forth be searched. not so that in the readily forgotten years sovereign the activities of .... authority, (1964) intervened from Aguilar agencies,’ and in the governmental Byars Spinelli (1969) courts, most state including against any ‘the assurance revival one, perfectly willing were to abdicate power of’ the ‘misuse of in the matter of their did, responsibility, integri for the seizures,’ searches and embodied in the ty Now, of state constitutions. with the amendment, ‘is impaired by 4th not to be unexpected demise of Spinelli, judicial equivocal sanction of methods it may well be supposed that most state which, reality, .... strike at the sub- courts will with equal lack of spirit jump to right,’ stance of the constitutional and as the High Court’s “totality circumstanc prompted adoption the same intention that, too, es” doctrine until perhaps will fall constitution, provisions of our state wayside. It is kept mind, to be ‘to unauthor- people against secure the however, that High decisions of the action,’ no other ized official there seems interpreting the Rights Bill of set the mini that unauthorized logical conclusion than mum guarantees of rights, individual judicial receive official action should not do, there are state courts which as they in a state by receipt sanction of evidence properly may, give truly independent force court, secured federal offi- although to their state constitutions which often are cers, which, upon showing the same protective more rights of those than deci facts, court, would be denied in a federal sions handed down by High Court. Nor when to do so would be to violate the High Court ever intimated that right guaranteed same both the feder- state Quite courts act as clones. the con al and state constitutions.” trary is holding, course, true. “Our does Arregui, Idaho at 254 P. at 796 power affect the State’s impose high added). (emphasis er standards on searches and seizures than recently Just the Washington Supreme required by the Federal Constitution if it White, Court in State v. 97 Wash.2d California, chooses to do Cooper so.” P.2d 1061 after observing its exhibit- 58, 62, 788, 791, 17 U.S. L.Ed.2d 730 right ed “interpret Washington Con- (1967). Probably one reason for state court protective stitution as more of individual forbearance is that protection of individual rights than parallel provisions of the United rights, whereby guilty go sometimes cases)”, (citing States Constitution went on (often free to be again tried and then con prece- note that there was even earlier victed) requires the strongest judicial forti White, dent for its decision in where it tude —which was especially clear when the specifically yield declined to to the Warren Court intervened in states where Michigan Court’s decision in v. DeFillippo, rights individual protected were not as well L.Ed.2d 343 as they have been in Idaho —in which states Washington Court said: even until this day highway there are signs advocating impeachment “We think the our language Earl War state con- ren. Undoubtedly there rumblings provision were stitutional constitutes a man- against justices when, the four of this Court the right privacy date that of shall not be reversing in the conviction of Mateo Arre by judicial gloss diminished of a selec- gui, wrote: they remedy. In tively applied exclusionary words, the emphasis protect- other is on

“In the hands of the state courts is ing personal rights rather than on curb- placed the power prevent part to in ing governmental view to- violation of the actions. This rights of a citizen by protecting rights federal authorities in ward individual as a violation of state paramount and federal concern is in a line constitutions. This is not reflected court, in the power Washington Supreme pre- of the state cases but If, Ohio, its duty. dating Mapp as said in the v. Burdeau 367 81 U.S. 4th amendment to the 6 federal consti- S.Ct. 84 A.L.R.2d tution ‘was intended upon as a restraint 933 which first made the exclu-

690 rule to the

sionary applicable effectively states. See available way by removing — 840, 842, 40 246 Cyr State v. Wash.2d disregard the incentive to it.” Elkins (1952); Miles, 29 P.2d 480 State v. States, supra, v. United U.S. [364 206] 921, 926, (1948); Wash.2d 190 P.2d 740 at 217 1437 at [80 1444].’ Gunkel, 528, 534-35, State v. 188 Wash. (Italics ours.) 655-56, 367 Mapp, U.S. at 63 (1936); P.2d 376 145 Buckley, State 81 1691-92. The Court’s current Wash. (1927); 258 P. 1030 view of the rule exclusionary ignores the Gibbons, 171, 182-88, 118 Wash. 203 P. above language Mapp without overrul- (1922). important place of ing Mapp it. stands as an anomaly Const, right privacy to art. § court’s current stance on the exclusionary seems to us to require that whenever Powell, 465, 509, rule. Stone violated, right unreasonably is the reme- 3037, 3059, L.Ed.2d 1067 dy must follow. J., (Brennan, dissenting). generally See not reading certainly “This a novel Burkhoff, The Court that Devoured the fact, one. In the United Triumph Fourth Amendment: The of an Court held the same view of the Fourth Doctrine, Exclusionary Inconsistent Amendment until recent decisions. Ore.L.Rev. Mapp, the exclusionary rule was declared application “Without an immediate binding on the component states as a exclusionary rule whenever an indi- the Fourteenth Amendment due process right privacy unreasonably vidual’s clause. Justice Clark delivered ma- invaded, protections of Fourth jority opinion, in which he wrote: Const, art. Amendment right ‘The to privacy, when conceded view, seriously eroded. In our exclusion operatively against enforceable of the confession in this case is mandated States, was susceptible of destruc- our constitution. rule state Such a tion avulsion of the sanction stability rights will add to the of individ- protection which its enjoyment had citizens, ual discourage been always deemed dependent under provisions from akin to passing RCW the Boyd, Weeks and Silverthorne 9A.76.020, and will make law enforce- Therefore, cases. extending the sub- predictable. ment more As summarized stantive protections. process of due by Justice Clark: all constitutionally unreasonable longer permit right no can [the ‘[W]e searches —state or federal —it logi- was at the whim privacy] to be revocable cally constitutionally necessary who, officer in the name the exclusion doctrine —an essen- itself, of law enforcement chooses to tial part right privacy —be decision, its suspend enjoyment. Our ingre- also insisted essential truth, gives founded on reason and right recognized dient of the newly individual no more than that short, the Wolf case. the admission him, guarantees the Constitution to the right by of the new constitutional Wolf police officer no less than that to which consistently could not tolerate denial of entitled, honest law enforcement important its most constitutional privi- and, courts, that judicial integri- to the lege, namely, exclusion the evi- in the true administra- ty necessary so dence which an accused had been justice.’ tion of give forced to reason unlaw- Mapp, 81 S.Ct. at 1694. ful seizure. To hold otherwise is to “The trial court’s invalidation of RCW grant right reality but to with- 9A.76.020(1) suppression and its privilege enjoyment. Only hold its to all evidence obtained as an incident year recognized last itself stat- arrest under the above respondent’s purpose of the exclusionary ute are affirmed.” rule “is to compel respect deter —to guaranty the constitutional in the 640 P.2d at 1071-72. case), Gates) (this

All of which leads to the conviction linois v. and Orlando statutory and long Florida, Idaho has had its own although poles both cities are in controlling case law which be should apart. There are midwest- likely many today. decision which this Court makes ern conservatives in as there are in Orlando is for this ways go. There are two to One Ames, Iowa, Boise, not, or Idaho. If or if eccentric Court to remain a satellite in the thought statement be of as facetious and the other orbiting High nature, and while not be my may belief readily consistency to seek the which justified, to outrageous it is no more teachings by utilizing attainable infer that any person ticketed to Orlando the Ida 120-year-old statutory provisions a prime The drug suspect. then question ho Code Arregui. majority extremely was careless Gates becomes, Aguilar absent the now discarded of Florida as a stigmatizing whole state test, embracing and without drug well-known source. This Court does circumstances” newly adopted “totality of likewise, care- heaping carelessness (but declaring it at the same time not lessness. nothing At the same time there is Idaho), whether have not been the rule in in this record to sustain a statement used issued the instant magistrate properly by the Gates standing court that “Even seem Initially, so it would search warrant. alone, the facts obtained through inde- me, the information of the clear to pendent investigation of Mader and tipster wholly must be disre anonymous DEA at suggested least that the Gates were If the had the same garded. tipster passed involved in drug trafficking.” directly information into the ear of the 2320, 76 it magistrate, any would not make differ that the inescapable The conclusion is un- ence whatever. And I much doubt that any derlying properly magis- facts would act such in any a determi- justifying trate fell far short of manner. That it comes to the magistrate cause was established. nation that through an officer serves to enhance its “everything panned While it is true that utility in no whatever. In the way hands of in this which is out well in the end” officer, however, a police if it excites the mind the plus, one can not dismiss from attention, it may certainly enough be freedom countless invasions of individual cause further investigation. And here which privacy persons innocent investigation there was further which es immediate majority’s be occasioned tablished the truth of some of which the Gates, without suppliance and obeisant tipster related. The officer by affidavit continuing giving due consideration related to a magistrate what he personally a rule prior Aguilar-Spinelli with knew, and let properly draw implemented well our Idaho Constitution. the conclusions might gathered The rule of would better serve Arregui from the facts and allowable inferences. serve its magistrates of Idaho and better This was as the statutes require. The most people. Arregui To follow and continue to that can be said from properly the facts apply to art. 13 would demonstrate stated is that the accused used an alias independence that this Court is not without Orlando, Florida, name in traveling to integrity. and not without its own left his bug long-term YW in parking at the Boise airport. sparse On that statement of

facts, the magistrate issued a warrant au

thorizing the search of defendant's person

and baggage. If there is anything in the

officer’s affidavit which purports to declare

that Orlando is a of drug activity,4 1 hot-bed

am it. (Il- unable to find West Palm Beach is not Orlando named Justice Powell as a “source” Mendenhall, city. United States v.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Lang

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 21, 1983

Citation: 672 P.2d 561

Docket Number: 14346

Court Abbreviation: Idaho