Aguilar v. Texas

Background

Two Houston narcotics officers applied for a search warrant to enter a man's home after an affidavit said they had "reliable information from a credible person" that narcotics were kept there for sale. The officers executed the warrant, forced entry after hearing a commotion, and seized a packet of heroin. At trial the man was convicted and sentenced to twenty years; the Texas courts affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether that short affidavit supplied enough facts for a magistrate to find probable cause. The majority said no: a magistrate must be told some of the underlying circumstances showing why the informant believed the drugs were at the address, or why the officer found the informant reliable. A bare statement that officers received "reliable information" from a "credible person" is too conclusory, so the warrant should not have issued and the evidence was inadmissible.

Real world impact

The decision limits when police can get warrants based only on anonymous tips. Magistrates must be given real supporting facts to assess probable cause, and evidence seized under an unsupported affidavit can be excluded. The rule applies to state searches as the Court applied the Fourth Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the ruling reviewed a state warrant under the Fourteenth Amendment, it guides how state magistrates and police present supporting facts.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the officers had a credible informant and a week of surveillance, so the affidavit was adequate; a Justice concurred because an earlier case made strict state standards necessary.