AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant's appeal against the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant. The search warrant was issued based on information from a confidential informant and a controlled buy operation at the Defendant's residence, which allegedly established the presence of cocaine.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the search warrant affidavit was deficient as it failed to establish the confidential informant’s credibility and that the affidavit contained no information demonstrating the informant's reliability. The Defendant conceded that the affidavit satisfied the basis of knowledge prong but contended it was insufficient for establishing probable cause.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's arguments are not directly detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the State defended the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit and the establishment of probable cause for the search.

Legal Issues

• Whether the search warrant affidavit was deficient due to a failure to establish the confidential informant’s credibility.
• Whether the controlled buy operation and subsequent police corroboration sufficiently established probable cause for the search warrant.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge LINDA M. VANZI and concurred by Judges J. MILES HANISEE and EMIL J. KIEHNE, held that:
  The affidavit for the search warrant provided a substantial basis to support a finding of probable cause, as required by precedent and procedural rules (paras 2-3).
  The controlled buy operation, corroborated by police, independently established the informant's information and credibility, addressing both prongs of the Cordova (Aguilar-Spinelli) test (para 4).
  The affidavit's reliance on the controlled buy at the Defendant's residence, rather than the direct observation of the Defendant selling cocaine, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the search (para 5).
  The Court affirmed the district court's decision, emphasizing the deferential standard of review for probable cause determinations and the sufficiency of corroborated informant information in establishing probable cause (paras 3-6).