Illinois v. Gates
462 U.S. 213 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When assessing whether an informant's tip establishes probable cause for a search warrant, magistrates must use a flexible "totality of the circumstances" standard rather than the rigid two-pronged test established in Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States. A deficiency in one prong (veracity or basis of knowledge) may be compensated for by a strong showing in the other or by other indicia of reliability.
Facts:
- On May 3, 1978, the Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous, handwritten letter.
- The letter accused Lance and Sue Gates of selling drugs and detailed their alleged method of operation: Sue would drive their car to Florida, leave it to be loaded with drugs, and fly back, after which Lance would fly to Florida and drive the car back to Illinois.
- The letter predicted that Sue was driving to Florida on May 3 and Lance would fly down in a few days to drive the car back, which would be loaded with over $100,000 in drugs.
- A police detective, Mader, confirmed that a Lance Gates lived in Bloomingdale and had a reservation to fly to West Palm Beach, Florida on May 5.
- Mader arranged for surveillance, which confirmed that Lance Gates flew to West Palm Beach, went to a hotel room registered to Susan Gates, and the next morning, both left together in a car registered to Gates, driving north on an interstate highway toward the Chicago area.
Procedural Posture:
- Police executed a search warrant and discovered contraband in Lance and Susan Gates' car and home.
- The Gateses were indicted on state drug charges in the Illinois Circuit Court of Du Page County (a trial court).
- The Gateses filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit for the warrant failed to establish probable cause.
- The Illinois trial court granted the motion to suppress.
- The State of Illinois appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The State of Illinois then appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois (the state's highest court), which also affirmed, finding the warrant deficient under the Aguilar-Spinelli test.
- The State of Illinois 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, based on an anonymous informant's tip that is substantially corroborated by independent police investigation, provide sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
Yes, a search warrant based on a partially corroborated anonymous tip can be valid under the totality of the circumstances. The rigid 'two-pronged test' from Aguilar and Spinelli, which required separate, independent showings of an informant's 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge,' is abandoned. Instead, these elements are viewed as intertwined issues that illuminate the practical, common-sense question of whether there is probable cause. Probable cause is a fluid concept dealing with probabilities, not a technical legal standard. In this case, although the anonymous letter by itself was insufficient, the police's corroboration of many of its predictions—such as Lance's flight to Florida and immediate return drive—made the informant's other assertions, including the presence of drugs, credible enough to establish a 'fair probability' that contraband would be found, justifying the warrant.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the warrant should be upheld. The Court should have addressed the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which would have justified the search regardless of the probable cause finding. However, even without abandoning Aguilar-Spinelli, the warrant was valid. The detailed predictions in the tip, combined with the extensive corroboration of the Gateses' unusual travel patterns by the police, were sufficient to satisfy both the 'basis of knowledge' and 'veracity' prongs of the existing test. The corroboration demonstrated that the informant had access to reliable, inside information, making the tip trustworthy enough to establish probable cause.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No, the warrant is invalid and the Aguilar-Spinelli test should not have been abandoned. The two-pronged test provides a necessary structure for magistrates to independently assess probable cause, ensuring that searches are not based on unreliable or conclusory allegations. The Court's new 'totality of the circumstances' test is an ill-advised, overly permissive standard that provides no guidance to magistrates and threatens to 'eviscerate' the probable-cause standard. By abandoning a clear framework, the Court disregards the judiciary's role as the primary guardian of Fourth Amendment rights against unchecked government intrusion.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, the warrant was not supported by probable cause, even under a flexible standard. The informant's letter contained a material mistake: it predicted Sue Gates would fly home from Florida, but she in fact drove home with Lance. This discrepancy undermined the informant's credibility. Furthermore, the police only corroborated innocent activities that were not unusual enough to suggest criminal conduct. The Court's finding of probable cause seems improperly colored by the subsequent discovery of drugs, which is information the issuing judge did not have.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shifted Fourth Amendment jurisprudence by replacing the rigid, analytical Aguilar-Spinelli test with a more flexible, holistic standard for probable cause. The 'totality of the circumstances' approach gives magistrates significantly more discretion and makes it easier for law enforcement to obtain warrants based on informants' tips, especially anonymous ones. By lowering the previously technical requirements, the ruling prioritizes a practical, non-technical view of probable cause, which critics argue weakens the protections of the warrant requirement.
Unlock the full brief for Illinois v. Gates