AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was implicated in two separate cases involving the sale of crack cocaine from hotel rooms, identified as the Days Inn case and the Super 8 case. Confidential informants (CIs) provided information leading to controlled buys of cocaine from rooms allegedly occupied by the Defendant, known as "Tex." These controlled buys and additional surveillance led to the issuance of search warrants for the hotel rooms, where cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia were found.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the affidavits supporting the search warrants in both cases did not establish probable cause, contending that the affidavits failed to demonstrate the veracity of the confidential informants (CIs) and that the information within the affidavits was stale due to the sixty-seven-hour lapse between the investigations and the preparation of the affidavits.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the affidavits submitted in support of the search warrants in both the Days Inn and Super 8 cases established probable cause, specifically addressing the veracity of the confidential informants and the freshness of the information provided.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed both orders denying the Defendant's motions to suppress evidence in the Days Inn and Super 8 cases.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the affidavits provided a substantial basis for the issuing judges to determine probable cause existed for the search warrants. The Court applied the Aguilar-Spinelli test to assess the affidavits, focusing on the veracity of the CIs and the staleness of the information provided. The Court found that the CIs' veracity was established through their statements against penal interest, successful controlled buys, and corroborated by independent police surveillance. The affidavits' information was not considered stale despite the sixty-seven-hour gap between the controlled buys and the preparation of the affidavits, as the affidavits contained sufficient details to infer that the Defendant's drug selling activities were continuous and ongoing. The Court emphasized a non-hypertechnical reading of the affidavits, allowing for reasonable inferences of ongoing criminal activity, which supported the finding of probable cause despite the time elapsed.