OPINION
Appellant, Marcus D. Tittle, hereinafter referred to as defendant, waived a jury trial and was chаrged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Washita County, Case No. CRF-74 — S3, for the offense of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, in violation of 63 O.S.1971, § 2-401 (A)(1). The Court imposed punishment оf five (5) years’ imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Harold Cooper testified that he was the sheriff of Washita County and had bеen since 1970. On September 9, 1974, he arrested the defendant at his place of employment, аdvised defendant of his Miranda rights and made a custodial search of the defendant’s person. That search yielded a blue notebook that was later introduced as evidence against the defendant. Sheriff Cooper then searched defendant’s car, pursuant to a search wаrrant for the vehicle, obtained earlier that day. A blue bag containing four small cellophаne bags, each of which contained several tablets, was found on the floor of the cаr. A report prepared by Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Chemist Don Flint and allowed intо evidence by stipulation, identified the tablets as containing amphetamines. Sheriff Cooper said that based on his experience in numerous drug cases, the packaging of the tablets in suсh a manner would be conducive to resale of the tablets.
The only other witness called by either side was Dalton Berry. Berry stated that he was a Deputy Sheriff of Washita County on September 9, 1974; thаt he had accompanied the search; that he heard Cooper’s testimony and that any testimony that he could give would simply be a corroboration and re-statement of that given by Cooper.
The State then rested. Defendant’s Demurrer to the evidence was overruled, and thе defendant presented no testimony.
Defendant’s first proposition of error is that the trial cоurt erroneously overruled his Motion to Quash the search warrant and to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the car. Defendant argues that Sheriff Cooper’s affidavit, the sole basis on which this warrant was issued, fails to allege the reliability and credibility of the informant in а manner sufficient to allow the magistrate to use his independent judgment in determining if probable cause for the issuance of the warrant existed.
After reciting that the informant had seen the blue bag аnd its contents in defendant’s car on September 8, 1974, the Affidavit states as follows:
“. . ., affiant further states that he knows the reputation for truth and veracity of the informant and has received reliable information from said informant on two prior occasions.”
In
Simon v. State,
Okl.Cr.,
“That I was contacted by [a] confidential informant who has in the past proven to be reliable by supplying informa *424 tion resulting in the arrests and convictions of four persons for nаrcotic charges. . . .”
was sufficient to allow the Magistrate to independently determine that thе affiant-officer was justified in believing the informant to be reliable and credible and to establish рrobable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. In the instant case, the affiаnt’s recitation of two prior uses of this informant and the affiant’s knowledge of the informant’s reputation for truth and veracity was sufficient, based on the holding in Simon. We, therefore, hold this proposition to be without merit.
The trial court also overruled defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the search of defendant’s person. Dеfendant was arrested as he emerged from a restroom in the plant where he worked. The arrest was without an arrest warrant. Sheriff Cooper stated that he based his decision to arrest оn what the informant had told him about the defendant, and some prior drug sales by the defendant. Defendant contends that this arrest was illegal under 22 O.S.1971, § 196, the search incident was also illegal and the blue notebook seized should have been suppressed as evidence.
In construing 22 O.S.1971, § 196, in
Darks v. State,
Okl.Cr.,
Sheriff Cooper, acting on the information given him by the informant, had probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a felony by previously making drug sales. Therefore, the arrest of the defendant was lawful under
In conclusion, we оbserve that the record is free of any error which would justify modification or reversal. The judgment and sentence is accordingly, affirmed.