This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty to the crime of possession of marijuana, A.R.S. § 36-1002.05, and a sentence *409 thereon of not less than three nor more than six yеars in the Arizona State Prison.
On appeal appellants claim that:
1. The grand jury transcript, the affidavit and the stipulations did not set forth sufficient evidence to prove the crime of possession оf marijuana.
2. The prosecutor’s closing statement to the grand jury tainted the grand jury proceedings thus rendering impossible a fair and impartial decision on thе issue of probable cause.
3. The trial court erred by denying appellants’ motion to suppress any and all evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of the search warrant issued by the police judge.
We believe none of the points has merit and therefore affirm.
The evidence statеd most strongly in favor of the State reveals that pursuant to an informer’s tip, police set up surveillance of a vehicle parked in Pirtleville, Arizona. Aftеr approximately four hours the vehicle left the Pirtleville location, but was later stopped by police heading west on U.S. 80 and a search warrаnt was served on the occupants (appellants herein). During the course of the search, six duffle bags containing 128 pounds of marijuana were discovered in the car. It is not clear from the record whether the duffle bags were in the interior passenger compartment of the car or in the trunk or engine сompartments.
The case was submitted to the trial court on the basis of the affidavit, search warrant and a nine-page grand jury transcript. Counsel for both thе State and appellants additionally stipulated as to the facts.
As the first ground for appeal, it is contended that the State failed to show knowledgе by either appellant of the presence of marijuana. Rather, appellants claim they were merely present in the vehicle when the marijuana was discovered. It is well established that mere presence where narcotics or marijuana is found is insufficient to establish that one knowingly possеssed or exercised dominion and control over the drugs.
State v. Van Meter,
“Althоugh possession may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence, the evidence must link the defendant to the narcotics in such a manner and to such an extent that a reasonable inference may arise that the defendant knew of the narcotics’ existence and of its whereabouts.”8 Ariz.App. at 302 ,445 P.2d at 859 .
In the case at bench a confidential informant had met with the Douglas Police Department and had stated that “two guys were going to go into Mexico and bring some marijuanа to take to Tucson” and would be driving a blue Corvair.with primer spots bearing Arizona license No. TBF-674. Later, the same informant told the police that the “stuff” had bеen brought in during the night and was in a vehicle parked in Pirtleville.
An automobile fitting the above description was located in that town in front of the home of appellants’ sister. 1 Appellants entered the Corvair and were heading west on U.S. 80 when stopped.
We first note that the case before us is not a typical “mere presence” situation where a small quantity of narcotics or marijuana is discovered.
See,
generally,
*410
State v. Van Meter,
supra;
State v. Allen, 9
Ariz.App. 196,
It is our opinion that when the testimony of the informant, the factual statement of the case and the location of the vehicle when stopped are considered together, an inference arises that the appellants were the ones who had brought the marijuana from Mexico, were transporting it, and knew that it was located in the automobile.
Appellants’ second contention is that the prosecutor’s closing statement to the grand jury tainted those proceedings, thus rendering impossible a fair and impartial decision оn the issue of probable cause. It is true that a prosecutor may not indulge in conduct before a grand jury which improperly influences the action оf that body. Such conduct is not sanctioned and is therefore subject to challenge.
State v. Good,
As the final ground for appeаl, it is contended that the search warrant served on appellants was defective and that the trial court should have suppressed all evidencе obtained pursuant to the execution of said warrant. We have reviewed the affidavit in support of the warrant in question
2
and conclude that it fails to substantially comply with the requirements enunciated in
Aguilar v. State of Texas,
Although the affidavit adequately described the vehicle in which appellants were traveling, it failed to inform the magistrate of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were.
State ex rel. Flournoy v. Wren,
Further, tjie affidavit indicates that Detective Dabovich had corroborated past information from this particular informant through an independent source. There is no statement that the detective had corroborated the present information through an independent source.
However, despite any defect in the affidavit, we hold that the рolice officers had probable cause to search the . vehicle in question. It is well-established that given probable cause, law enforcement officials do not need a warrant for an automobile search.
Carroll v. United States,
The grand jury transcript reflects that the police officers who mаde the search had more information establishing probable cause than was contained in the affidavit. Further, they had been supplied with information by a рroven reliable informant who had accurately predicted the time, place and movement of an unmistakenly described automobile.
See, Draper v. United States,
Affirmed.
Notes
. Evidence was introduced that the vehicle containing the marijuana was in fact оwned by this sister.
. The affidavit recites in pertinent part:
“That a confidential reliable informant has in the past provided information to Det. Ted. Dabovich and that Detc. [sic] Dabovich has corrobоrated .the information thru and [sic] independent source.
That on March 14,1975 this same informant advised Det. Dabovich that on March 16th, 1975 a load of marihuana would bе transported into Douglas in a Blue, Chev, Corvair, with primer spots, 2 dr. bering [sic] ,Ariz. Lie. #TBF-674. That ,the Corvair will be driven to Tucson Ariz. for the sale of the marihuana. That the owner and driver of the Corvair is Eddie Lopez.”