Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1979–1993 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Daniels v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See Daniels v. State, 290 Ala. 316 , 276 So.2d 441 (1973), in which Justice Bloodworth, writing for the Court, set out several of the principles of law that authorized a Terry stop and frisk and concluded that the officers in that case had probable cause to search for illegal drugs. 1993See Daniels v. State, 290 Ala. 316 , 276 So.2d 441 (1973), in which Justice Bloodworth, writing for the Court, set out several of the principles of law that authorized a Terry stop and frisk and concluded that the officers in that case had probable cause to search for illegal drugs. | 1 | 1 |
Parmley v. Stategreen2 sentences1982Compare Stikes v. State , 397 So.2d 179 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 183 (Ala. 1981) (only basis for determining reliability was conclusion of one police officer stated to another police officer). 1982Compare Stikes v. State , 397 So.2d 179 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 183 (Ala. 1981) (only basis for determining reliability was conclusion of one police officer stated to another police officer). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Roy Charles Spachgreen2 sentences1982LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure, Section 3.3 (1978). "(T)he issue is not the length of the chain but rather whether both prongs of the Aguilar test are met at each level." United States v. Spach, 518 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1975). "(A)n admission transmitted through an informant is only as reliable as its conduit is trustworthy." Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74, 78 (1978). 1982LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure, Section 3.3 (1978). "(T)he issue is not the length of the chain but rather whether both prongs of the Aguilar test are met at each level." United States v. Spach, 518 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1975). "(A)n admission transmitted through an informant is only as reliable as its conduit is trustworthy." Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74, 78 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stokesgreen2 sentences1982LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure, Section 3.3 (1978). "(T)he issue is not the length of the chain but rather whether both prongs of the Aguilar test are met at each level." United States v. Spach, 518 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1975). "(A)n admission transmitted through an informant is only as reliable as its conduit is trustworthy." Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74, 78 (1978). 1982LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure, Section 3.3 (1978). "(T)he issue is not the length of the chain but rather whether both prongs of the Aguilar test are met at each level." United States v. Spach, 518 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1975). "(A)n admission transmitted through an informant is only as reliable as its conduit is trustworthy." Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74, 78 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lomax v. State
green
2 sentences1979Roberson v. State , supra. In that case, as in this, there was a tip from an unidentified informant which failed to meet either prong of the Aguilar test, supra. We held in Roberson and in Hatton v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 359 So.2d 822 (1977), writ quashed, Ala., 359 So.2d 832 , that reputation standing alone is an insufficient basis for probable cause, but is a factor which may be considered along with other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the existence of probable cause. 1979Roberson v. State , supra. In that case, as in this, there was a tip from an unidentified informant which failed to meet either prong of the Aguilar test, supra. We held in Roberson and in Hatton v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 359 So.2d 822 (1977), writ quashed, Ala., 359 So.2d 832 , that reputation standing alone is an insufficient basis for probable cause, but is a factor which may be considered along with other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the existence of probable cause. | 2 | 1979–1982 |
Hatton v. State
green
2 sentences1979Roberson v. State , supra. In that case, as in this, there was a tip from an unidentified informant which failed to meet either prong of the Aguilar test, supra. We held in Roberson and in Hatton v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 359 So.2d 822 (1977), writ quashed, Ala., 359 So.2d 832 , that reputation standing alone is an insufficient basis for probable cause, but is a factor which may be considered along with other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the existence of probable cause. 1979Roberson v. State , supra. In that case, as in this, there was a tip from an unidentified informant which failed to meet either prong of the Aguilar test, supra. We held in Roberson and in Hatton v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 359 So.2d 822 (1977), writ quashed, Ala., 359 So.2d 832 , that reputation standing alone is an insufficient basis for probable cause, but is a factor which may be considered along with other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the existence of probable cause. | 2 | 1979–1982 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences1989The Court of Criminal Appeals has obviously applied a "hypertechnical" examination of the facts, and has dealt in "possibilities" rather than "probabilities." 6 *Page 1083 It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the Court of Criminal Appeals has, in effect, resurrected the Aguilar standard in a "stop and frisk" setting by citing a dissenting opinion to support its conclusion, and engaging in the "library analysis" condemned by Cortez , supra. The "hypertechnical" approach called for in Aguilar was specifically abandoned by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 10 1989The Court of Criminal Appeals has obviously applied a "hypertechnical" examination of the facts, and has dealt in "possibilities" rather than "probabilities." 6 *Page 1083 It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the Court of Criminal Appeals has, in effect, resurrected the Aguilar standard in a "stop and frisk" setting by citing a dissenting opinion to support its conclusion, and engaging in the "library analysis" condemned by Cortez , supra. The "hypertechnical" approach called for in Aguilar was specifically abandoned by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 10 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Waters v. State
green
2 sentences1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, 1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Waters v. State
green
2 sentences1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, 1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Neugent v. State
green
2 sentences1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, 1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Federation of Telephone Workers v. Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, 1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Neugent v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, 1982It states, "This informant has given me reliable information in the recent past, which after being checked has proven reliable." This recitation establishes the underlying facts upon which the officer's conclusion was based, and it more than meets the minimum information required by Neugent v. State , Ala., 340 So.2d 52 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1653 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977), wherein the affidavit indicated that the information came from "a person whose record of reliability for correctness has been good." See also Waters v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 360 So.2d 347 , cert. denied, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Spinelli v. United States
red
2 sentences1980Reviewing the evidence, it cannot fairly be said “that the tip, even when certain parts of it have been corroborated by independent sources, is as trustworthy as a tip which would pass Aguilar’s test without independent corroboration.” Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 415-16 , 89 S.Ct. at 588-589 . 1980Reviewing the evidence, it cannot fairly be said “that the tip, even when certain parts of it have been corroborated by independent sources, is as trustworthy as a tip which would pass Aguilar’s test without independent corroboration.” Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 415-16 , 89 S.Ct. at 588-589 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Beck v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1979Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 . *957 The first mandate of the Aguilar test requires that the affidavit show the underlying facts to justify a conclusion on the part of the magistrate that the evidence is probably located in the place sought to be searched. 1979Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 . *957 The first mandate of the Aguilar test requires that the affidavit show the underlying facts to justify a conclusion on the part of the magistrate that the evidence is probably located in the place sought to be searched. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.