Aguilar v. Texas
378 U.S. 108 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a search warrant based on an informant's tip to be constitutionally valid under the Fourth Amendment, the supporting affidavit must provide the magistrate with sufficient underlying circumstances to independently judge both the informant's basis of knowledge and their credibility or the reliability of their information.
Facts:
- Two police officers in Houston, Texas received information from an informant they considered credible.
- The informant claimed that Aguilar possessed heroin, marijuana, barbiturates, and other narcotics at his home for the purposes of sale and use.
- The officers applied for a search warrant from a local Justice of the Peace to search Aguilar's home.
- In support of the warrant, the officers submitted an affidavit stating only that they had 'received reliable information from a credible person and do believe that heroin, marijuana, barbiturates and other narcotics... are being kept at the above described premises'.
- The affidavit did not provide any further information about the informant or the basis for the informant's knowledge.
- Based solely on this affidavit, the Justice of the Peace issued a search warrant.
- Upon executing the warrant, officers forced entry after hearing a commotion and discovered Aguilar attempting to dispose of a packet of narcotics.
- The officers seized the packet, which was found to contain heroin.
Procedural Posture:
- Aguilar was charged in a Texas state trial court with illegal possession of heroin.
- At trial, Aguilar's counsel objected to the introduction of the heroin evidence, arguing the search warrant was invalid. The trial court overruled the objection.
- Aguilar was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
- Aguilar (as appellant) appealed the conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Aguilar petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a search warrant affidavit violate the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement if it is based on an informant's tip but fails to state the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that contraband was present and the underlying circumstances establishing the informant's credibility or the reliability of their information?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Goldberg
Yes, the warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. A search warrant affidavit relying on an informant's tip violates the Fourth Amendment if it fails to provide a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause. The affidavit must inform the magistrate of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where they claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was credible or their information reliable. The affidavit in this case was a 'mere conclusion' of an unidentified informant, providing no facts for the magistrate to perform their 'neutral and detached' function. By accepting the affidavit without question, the magistrate acted as a 'rubber stamp' for the police, which contravenes the core protection of the Fourth Amendment that requires probable cause to be determined by a magistrate, not by law enforcement officers or their informants.
Dissenting - Justice Clark
No, the warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The affidavit provided a sufficient basis for finding probable cause and the warrant should be upheld. The majority substitutes a 'rigid, academic formula' for the practical standard of reasonableness required by the Fourth Amendment. The officers' sworn statement that they received 'reliable information from a credible person' is significantly more than the 'mere affirmance of belief or suspicion' condemned in prior cases like Nathanson. Unlike in Giordenello, the affidavit here specified a source for the belief—a reliable informant. The totality of the circumstances, including the officers' sworn belief in their informant's credibility and their week-long surveillance, should be sufficient to establish probable cause.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes, the warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. Although he would have previously affirmed the judgment, he feels bound by the Court's recent decision in Ker v. California, which held that the Fourth Amendment's standards for searches and seizures are enforced against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. He views the standards laid down in Giordenello v. United States as reflecting constitutional requirements. To uphold the Texas court's decision would relax those standards for state prosecutions in derogation of the rule established in Ker. Therefore, to maintain a consistent constitutional standard for both federal and state law enforcement, he concurs with the Court's opinion that the warrant was invalid.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the 'Aguilar test,' a two-pronged framework for determining whether an informant's tip can create probable cause for a search warrant. This test required separate showings of the informant's 'veracity/reliability' and their 'basis of knowledge.' This structured approach significantly tightened the requirements for obtaining warrants based on hearsay, forcing police to provide magistrates with specific facts rather than conclusory allegations. The Aguilar test (later refined in Spinelli v. United States) dominated search and seizure law for nearly two decades before the Supreme Court replaced it with a more flexible 'totality of the circumstances' analysis in Illinois v. Gates.
Unlock the full brief for Aguilar v. Texas