United States v. Harris
403 U.S. 573 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A magistrate can find an informant's tip credible for a probable cause determination if the tip contains a declaration against the informant's own penal interest. A police officer's knowledge of a suspect's reputation can also be considered as a factor in assessing the reliability of an informant's tip.
Facts:
- For over four years, a federal tax investigator knew Roosevelt Harris to have a reputation as a trafficker of untaxed distilled spirits.
- During that period, a local constable had found a large amount of illicit whiskey in an abandoned house under Harris's control.
- An unidentified informant, fearing for their life, gave a sworn verbal statement to the investigator.
- The informant stated they had personal knowledge of and had purchased illicit whiskey from Harris's residence for more than two years, with the most recent purchase being within the last two weeks.
- The informant also stated they had knowledge of another person who purchased whiskey from the house within the past two days.
- The informant claimed to have seen Harris go to an outbuilding on the property on numerous occasions to get the whiskey for the informant and others.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal magistrate issued a search warrant for the premises of Roosevelt Harris based on an investigator's affidavit.
- Harris was charged in federal court with possession of nontaxpaid liquor.
- Harris filed a pretrial motion to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the affidavit was insufficient for probable cause; the trial court overruled the motion.
- Following a jury trial, Harris was convicted.
- Harris (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding the affidavit was insufficient.
- The United States (as petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. 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 establish probable cause when it is based on a tip from an unidentified informant who admits to criminal activity, combined with the affiant-officer's knowledge of the suspect's criminal reputation?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. A search warrant affidavit establishes probable cause when it contains a substantial basis for crediting an informant's hearsay report. Common sense dictates that declarations against penal interest carry their own indicia of credibility, as people do not lightly admit to a crime. This admission, coupled with the officer's own knowledge of the suspect's reputation as a criminal, provides a sufficient basis for a magistrate to find the informant's information reliable and establish probable cause. The Court reasoned that a suspect's reputation, while not sufficient alone, is a practical consideration of everyday life that can be used to corroborate a tip. The Court also criticized a hypertechnical reading of affidavits, stating they should be interpreted in a commonsense and realistic fashion.
Concurring - Justice Black
Yes. While agreeing with the majority's distinction of this case from Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States, this opinion argues for going further and completely overruling those two prior decisions.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes. This opinion joins the Chief Justice's opinion and the judgment, but adds that Spinelli v. United States was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No. The affidavit does not provide a sufficient basis for a neutral magistrate to independently determine that probable cause existed. The affidavit fails the two-pronged test from Aguilar and Spinelli because it offers no underlying facts for the magistrate to assess the informant's credibility. The officer's assertion that the informant was 'prudent' is a mere conclusion, and the informant's declaration against penal interest is not a reliable indicator of truthfulness, as informants may believe they will receive immunity. Furthermore, the suspect's reputation is just a 'bald and unilluminating assertion of suspicion' that should not be used to establish the credibility of an unnamed informant.
Analysis:
This case significantly softened the rigid two-pronged test for informant reliability established in Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States. By allowing magistrates to consider an informant's declaration against penal interest and a suspect's reputation, the Court moved toward a more flexible, 'totality of the circumstances' analysis. This decision made it easier for law enforcement to obtain warrants based on tips from confidential informants, even first-time informants with no track record of reliability. The holding in Harris presaged the eventual replacement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test with the totality of the circumstances test in Illinois v. Gates (1983).
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Harris