United States v. Harris

Background

In 1967 a federal tax investigator and a local constable obtained a search warrant and entered the home of Roosevelt Harris. They seized jugs of whiskey that lacked required federal tax stamps. The warrant rested entirely on the investigator’s affidavit, which reported an unnamed informant’s statements that he had personally bought illicit whiskey at the premises over a two-year period and as recently as within two weeks.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a magistrate may credit an informant known to police but unnamed to the judge. The majority found the affidavit provided an ample factual basis. It relied on the informant’s detailed personal observations, the officer’s own knowledge of Harris’s reputation and a prior seizure by a constable, and the fact that the informant’s statements admitted criminal conduct (an admission against penal interest). On that combined showing the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction.

Real world impact

The ruling permits magistrates to issue warrants when an unnamed tip is supported by officer knowledge and the tip includes admissions that would expose the informant to prosecution. It makes it easier for law enforcement to secure warrants in similar investigations but still leaves room for magistrates to judge credibility in each case. The majority emphasized a commonsense reading of affidavits and distinguished earlier Aguilar and Spinelli decisions.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices (Black, Blackmun, and White in parts) agreed with reversal for different reasons; four Justices in a dissent argued the affidavit lacked facts that a neutral magistrate needed to assess the informant’s credibility.