Gallimore v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 1938 |
| Citation | 116 S.W.2d 1001,173 Tenn. 178 |
| Parties | GALLIMORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court, Weakley County; R. A. Elkins, Judge.
Neal Gallimore was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Robert G. Jeter, of Dresden, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a conviction of transporting, with a fine of $100 and a jail sentence of six months. As Gallimore drove into Martin Tennessee, from Fulton, Kentucky, some dozen miles away, he was stopped and his car searched by a police officer of Martin and a deputy sheriff of the County and found to be transporting a large quantity of liquor. He complained only that the testimony of the officers should have been excluded because obtained as the result of an unlawful search. The State relies on (1) a search warrant and (2) a lawful arrest on reasonable information of a felony.
The sole complaint of the search warrant, which was issued by the magistrate some twenty minutes before the arrest, is that the officer who appeared before the magistrate and made the affidavit did not give the name of his informant to the magistrate. We quote the following pertinent excerpts from the affidavit:
We have no case holding that it is essential to the validity of a search warrant that it shall recite that the name of the informant was given to the magistrate. Counsel rely on the language used in Elliott v. State, 148 Tenn. 414, 256 S.W. 431 (and elsewhere) that the affidavit made on information and belief shall disclose "the nature and source of the information so that the magistrate himself can determine whether probable cause exists for the issuance of the search warrant". It is assumed that "source of the information" means name of the informant. We have not so construed it. A sufficient "source of the information" is any "reliable person". For example, in Stroud v. State, 159 Tenn. 263, at page 267, 17 S.W.2d 899, after quoting the above language from the Elliott Case, the Court said (page 900):
"The statement of the affidavit that the informant was a reliable person, and claimed to have heard the plaintiff in error agree to deliver whisky on the night the search warrant was to be executed, justified the magistrate in determining that probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant; and this averment alone was, in our opinion, sufficient to meet the attack on the affidavit."
In determining that probable cause appears for issuance of the warrant the magistrate is performing a judicial act. Seals v. State, 157 Tenn. 538, at page 541, 11 S.W.2d 879; Hampton v. State, 148 Tenn. 155, 252 S.W. 1007; Craven v. State, 148 Tenn. 517, 256 S.W. 431.
It is for the magistrate himself to determine whether, in any case before him, it is essential that the name of an informant otherwise shown to him to be a reliable person, shall be given. In other words, what particular, or specific, facts shall be placed before the magistrate in order to justify the exercise of his discretion in determining whether or not "probable cause" exists is for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lea v. State
...have applied the material evidence rule to these hearings before the magistrate on this issue of a showing of 'probable cause.' In Gallimore v. State, supra, said: 'It is for the magistrate himself to determine whether, in any case before him, it is essential that the name of an informant, ......
-
Webb v. State
...to the magistrate the name of his informant. This assignment may be disposed of by referring to our recent decision of Gallimore v. State, 173 Tenn. 178, 116 S.W.2d 1001. it is contended that the warrant does not sufficiently describe the premises to be searched. It appears that the affidav......
-
Everett v. State
...v. State, 173 Tenn. 178, 181, 116 S.W.2d 1001. We reaffirm the statement of the limited function of this Court set out in the Gallimore case, supra, but hold under rules stated in the Welchance case, supra, that a statement of the date of the observation of the offense committed is essentia......
-
Thompson v. Carson
...is not material in a search-warrant case, and the officer cannot be compelled to disclose the name by the trial court. Gallimore v. State, 173 Tenn. 178, 116 S.W.2d 1001; Bragg v. State, 155 Tenn. 20, 290 S.W. The decision of a justice of the peace in issuing a search warrant is not subject......