ILLINOIS v. GATES ET UX. No. 81-430 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 462 U.S. 213; 103 S. Ct.

2317; 76 L. Ed. 2d 527; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 54; 51 U.S.L.W. 4709 October 13, 1982, Argued June 8, 1983, Decided SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reargued March 1, 1983. PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. DISPOSITION: 85 Ill. 2d 376, 423 N. E. 2d 887, reversed. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner state appealed a judgment from the Illinois Supreme Court, which affirmed the decisions of lower state courts granting a motion to suppress evidence against respondents, a husband and wife, as having been obtained pursuant to a search warrant improperly issued on the basis of a confidential informant's tip in violation of the Fourth Amendment. OVERVIEW: A state supreme court ruled to suppress evidence against respondents, a husband and wife, reasoning that the search warrant was based on a confidential informant's tip that did not satisfy the purported "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" prongs for probable cause. Holding instead that probable cause was determined by a traditional totality-ofthecircumstances analysis, the Court reversed. The Court held that probable cause determinations were not susceptible to the rigid, technical methodology that had been read into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Court held that the elements of an informant's veracity and knowledge should be understood simply as issues that could illuminate the commonsense inquiry of whether there was probable cause to issue a search warrant. The Court held that this approach comported with the standard of proof for a warrant, which required only the "probability," and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity. The Court held that the informant's recitation of detailed facts, though relating to innocent activities, when corroborated by observation by police officers, afforded probable cause to believe that respondents had drugs in their possession. OUTCOME: The Court reversed the judgment that suppressed evidence against respondents, a husband and wife, because the suppression was based on an erroneous application of an overly rigid and technical standard for determining whether a confidential informant's tip established probable cause; under the proper, commonsense approach, the corroboration by police of the facts of the tip established probable cause to believe that respondents possessed drugs.

1They have an annomous letter 2have coroberating evidence --wife drive to FL --husband flys donwn --husband stars flying back We have something on basis of knowledge, but we dont know about reliability So they want to put these two away, so the court uses totality of the

circumstances --lay people Magistrates and Police, can not understand A/S --thy will instead just do warantless searches --if its two narrow then criminals will get away with it Disent: --now Magistrates have no guidelines