Massachusetts v. Upton
466 U.S. 727 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining if an informant's tip establishes probable cause for a search warrant, a magistrate must look at the totality of the circumstances, and reviewing courts should grant deference to the magistrate's decision rather than conducting a de novo review.
Facts:
- Police searched the motel room of Richard Kelleher and found items belonging to victims of recent burglaries, but did not find the more valuable stolen items like jewelry, silver, and gold.
- Three hours later, an unidentified woman called police and stated that a motor home parked behind George Upton's residence was full of stolen items, including jewelry, silver, and gold.
- The caller explained that Upton had purchased the stolen items from Kelleher and was planning to move the motor home because Kelleher's motel room had been raided.
- The caller initially refused to give her name, stating Upton would kill her, but when the officer guessed she was Lynn Alberico, Upton's girlfriend, she admitted her identity.
- The caller stated she had recently broken up with Upton and wanted 'to burn him.'
- The police officer drove by Upton's residence and confirmed that a motor home was parked on the property as the caller had described.
Procedural Posture:
- George Upton was charged and convicted on multiple counts of burglary and receiving stolen property in a Massachusetts trial court.
- Upton, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, as the appellee court, reversed Upton's convictions, holding that the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
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 satisfy the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement when evaluated under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard established in Illinois v. Gates?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The search warrant affidavit established probable cause under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts erred by rejecting the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Illinois v. Gates and instead applying the old, hypertechnical 'two-pronged test' from Aguilar and Spinelli. The court improperly dissected the affidavit's individual components in isolation rather than considering them as a whole. The informant's tip was rich with detail, including her knowledge of the Kelleher raid, the types of stolen items, and Upton's connection to Kelleher. The caller's admission of her identity as Upton's ex-girlfriend, Lynn Alberico, and her stated motive to 'burn him' provided context for her reliability. When viewed together, these facts provided the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding there was a 'fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime' would be found in the motor home.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. While agreeing with the judgment, the primary error was procedural. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts should have first analyzed the search warrant's validity under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights before reaching the federal Fourth Amendment question. State courts are the primary guardians of their citizens' liberties and should resolve claims under state law first, which may provide greater protection and avoid unnecessary federal review. By relying solely on the Fourth Amendment, the state court invited federal intervention and failed in its duty to interpret its own state constitution, a fundamental aspect of federalism.
Analysis:
This case serves as a strong reaffirmation and clarification of the 'totality of the circumstances' test established in Illinois v. Gates, cementing the rejection of the rigid Aguilar-Spinelli framework. It instructs lower courts that they may not simply pay lip service to the new test while continuing to analyze informant tips through the old two-pronged lens. The decision also reinforces the principle of deference to a magistrate's probable cause determination, discouraging reviewing courts from conducting their own de novo analysis and substituting their judgment for that of the issuing magistrate. This strengthens the preference for warrants and gives law enforcement more flexibility when relying on informant tips.
