Davis v. State

• Decision Date: 21 October 1969
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 3
• Citation: 237 So.2d 635,46 Ala.App. 45
• Parties: Horace E. DAVIS, alias v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 635

237 So.2d 635

46 Ala.App. 45

Horace E. DAVIS, alias v. STATE.

3 Div. 3.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 21, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1969.

Hill, Hill, Whiting & Harris and John O. Harris, Montgomery, for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Richard F. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CATES, Judge.

Appeal from conviction under Alabama Drug Abuse Control Act, Act 252, August 27, 1967. Sentence two years in the penitentiary. The only evidence came from a search.

We are compelled to reverse. The search warrant issued out of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery of which Alex A. Marks is Ex Officio Judge. See Act No. 906, September 8, 1961, particularly § 20. The affidavit laid before Judge Marks as such judge is conclusory only: it states no facts.

The deficiency is the same as that discussed in Knox v. State, 42 Ala.App. 578, 172 So.2d 787(9). The affiant gave no supporting facts to support his belief that stimulating or depressant drugs were present on Possum Davis's premises.

Another affidavit made before Judge Marks in his other office, as Judge of the Montgomery County Court, cannot bolster the warrant issued by him in his ex officio capacity as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas.

We have assumed arguendo (sed non concedendo) that language used by our Supreme Court in State ex rel. Vandiver v. Burke, 175 Ala. 561, 57 So. 870, supportive of the proposition that, like a probate judge who can wear one hat for his probate judgeship, other and different headpiece for his judgeship of the court of county commissioners and a third garb as judge of the county court, all with compatibility so long as he receives but one salary, upholds this second affidavit as though it were made in the same court before the same magistrate as the first affidavit made before Judge Marks. Be that as it may, for purposes of analysis, we set forth this second affidavit made before Judge Marks as Judge of Montgomery County Court, which became State's Exhibit '1,' to support the search warrant:

'MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT

'DATE: 9--13--67

'PERSON WANTED: Possum Davis, Horace E. Davis OFFENSE: Search Warrant ADDRESS: 331 U.S. Hwy. So. 29 miles So. Mtgy. PHONE: _ _ PLACE OF OCCURRANCE: Residence 517 E. Delano St., Montgomery, Ala. _ _ PERSON OR PROPERTY ATTACKED: _ _ HOW ATTACKED: _ _ DAMAGE DONE OR PROPERTY STOLEN: _ _ VALUE OF PROPERTY: _ _

'DETAILS: Information from a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good that at 331 Restaurant Possum Davis has had illicit narcotics, narcotic derivatives, marijuana, amphetamines and/or barbiturates including McNeils. That Davis stated he had a supply at his restaurant building, in his car and in a small out building. This information given me in several conversations over a period of about one month in person and over telephone.

'Based on statement by my reliable informer that subject made statement of having a supply of narcotics, etc. I have reason to believe that there probably are McNeils and other prohibited drugs at the residence of Horace E. Davis, 517 E. Delano Street, Montgomery.

'I make this affidavit for the purpose of securing search warrants against the said Horace E. 'Possum' Davis, I understand that I am instituting a criminal proceeding and cannot drop the case. I further understand that if any of the foregoing facts are untrue, I may, in addition to any other punishment provided by law, be taxed with court costs in this proceeding.

'/s/ James G. Ward

Complainant

'Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13 day of Sept. 1967.

'/s/ Alex A. Marks

Judge Montgomery

County Court

'WITNESSES:'

First, we disagree with the appellant in brief that the failure to disclose the identity of the informer, either in the affidavit or in voir dire examination in the course of the main trial, is a denial of due process. Nothing in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 or Douglas v. Ala., 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 calls for such a drastic conclusion.

In Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887, it is fairly well established that the prosecution is entitled to withhold the identity of the informant for at least two reasons: (1) to foster its activities in detecting crimes by keeping open lines of communications with the underworld and (2) to protect informers from harm or reprisal.

Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639, is an exception to this general rule. Here nothing was brought out which would have required the Roviaro exception to be put in operation.

Secondly, when, however, the police officer's affidavit relies upon information furnished by an informer, this is but reliance upon hearsay. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible on jury trial, primarily because of the division of a court in English law countries between triers of fact and judges of law.

Accordingly, there is no impediment to the use of hearsay evidence outside nisi prius trials before juries. Thus, in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397, it was held that no taint attached to an indictment merely because it was based on hearsay This for the obvious reason that credit was given to the necessity of the prosecution adducing legally admissible evidence upon trial of the resulting indictment. Presumptively, an indictment is laid against an innocent man.

However, in the case of a search, mere common law principles alone are not enough. Wise or unwise, the founders have inserted in our organic law the requirement that no search warrant be issued except upon an oath denoting probable cause.

The effect of this constitutional command is to require that the affiant (e.g. a police officer swearing out for a search warrant), who relies upon an informer, must do at least two things: (a) furnish the magistrate with information to support the credibility of the informer and (b) to furnish some observation of the officer himself of some fact or conduct perceived by him (or perhaps by another law enforcement officer) which admits of the same inference as does the statement of the informer.

When we analyze the affidavit before the Montgomery County Court, the reliability of the informer is stated in terms of correctness and is given the quality of being 'good.' 'Good' is not factual.

The occasions of prior information should have been stated in the informer's 'batting average' and would have given the magistrate something to consider in determining the weight of the hearsay. Second, the statement of Davis at the 331 Restaurant was couched in the term 'has had' without any designation of the remoteness or nearness in time of the making of the affidavit.

Finally, the vagueness of the period of time embraced in the conversation is fatal under the decided cases.

We quote from two pertinent federal appellate decisions, one of over 40 years standing, the second a reaffirmation in 1966:

'* * * The facts in the complaint or the affidavit upon which the search warrant is based must show a self-subsisting ground for the issuance of the warrant. United States v. Casino (D.C.) 286 F. 976.

'In the instant case the time elapsing between the sale on which the affidavit was based and the making of the affidavit on which the search warrant was issued was 42 days. This we hold was such a length of time as to destroy the effect of the sale as a foundation for a search warrant for present violation, in the absence of any other...