State v. Jones

¶1The State charged the defendant, Jack R. Jones, with possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, a violation of LSA-R.S. 40:966A. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, and the district court sustained it. We granted the State’s application to review this ruling. State v. Jones, La., 361 So.2d 1213.

¶2On March 4, 1978, Lieutenant Scotty Henderson and Sergeant Ricky Spier executed an affidavit for a search warrant.1*1360The affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before the Honorable Monty M. Wyche, Judge, Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court. Judge Wyche issued the search warrant. The search was executed -the same day, and the officers found four and one-half pounds of marijuana at the scene of the search.

¶3The trial judge granted the defendant’s motion to suppress on the basis that the affidavit failed to state sufficient facts to establish the reliability of the confidential informant. In State v. Paciera, La., 290 So.2d 681 (1974), we set forth the rules for issuance of a search warrant. We held that the affidavit submitted to the magistrate may be based entirely upon hearsay, but, if so, it must set forth the underlying circumstances and details sufficient to provide a substantial factual basis upon which the magistrate can find reliable both the informant and the information given by him.

¶4The defendant contends that the affidavit is insufficient to establish the reliability of the confidential informant. We find that the affidavit states sufficient circumstances and details to establish the reliability of the informant.

¶5Recitations in an affidavit that the informant has previously given information leading to arrests adequately supports the informant’s reliability. State v. Anderson, La., 357 So.2d 547 (1978); State v. Ballansaw, La., 350 So.2d 146 (1977); State v. Culotta, La., 343 So.2d 977 (1976); State v. Sierra, La., 338 So.2d 609 (1976).

¶6The present affidavit recites that the informant, designated by number, has given information in the past concerning narcotics traffic, which, after investigation, proved to b3. true. On several occasions, he has given information leading to narcotics arrests and seizure of drugs. Under the cited decisions, these facts are sufficient to support the reliability of the informant. Hence, the trial judge erred in granting the motion to suppress.

¶7For the reasons assigned, the ruling of the trial judge is reversed, the motion to suppress is overruled, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.