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 illegal drug activities, specifically the possession and sale of cocaine from his residence. This was based on observations made by a confidential informant, who claimed to have seen the Defendant in possession of cocaine within the past seventy-two hours and to have witnessed the Defendant selling cocaine from his residence in the past.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the search warrant affidavit lacked sufficient information to establish the confidential informant’s basis of knowledge, questioning the specificity of the informant's observations regarding the cocaine and the informant's ability to identify it as cocaine.
• Appellee: The State defended the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit, emphasizing the informant's direct observation of the Defendant's illegal activities and past participation in controlled buys of narcotics, which supported the informant's credibility and knowledge.

Legal Issues

• Whether the search warrant affidavit contained sufficient information to establish the confidential informant’s basis of knowledge.
• Whether the Defendant was denied due process due to the delay in serving the arrest warrant.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress.
• The Court rejected the Defendant's assertion of error regarding due process violation due to the delay in serving the arrest warrant.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for concluding that the informant had gathered information of illegal activity in a reliable fashion, satisfying the 'basis of knowledge' requirement. The informant's direct observation of the Defendant's possession and sale of cocaine, along with the informant's history of participating in controlled buys, was deemed sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant (paras 2-4).
  Regarding the Defendant's due process claim related to the delay in serving the arrest warrant, the Court noted that the Defendant had not demonstrated how this issue was preserved in the trial court, nor had he shown any prejudice resulting from the delay. Consequently, this assertion of error was rejected (paras 4-5).
  The Court's decision to affirm the denial of the motion to suppress was based on the credibility of the confidential informant, inferred from the informant's personal observations and past involvement in controlled narcotics transactions. The Court also emphasized the importance of issue preservation for appellate review and the necessity for demonstrating prejudice in claims of pre-indictment delay (paras 3-6).