REFERENCE: BELOW

Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)

Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?

facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.

Rule of Law:What rule please mention the statue, case, legal principle mentioned in the images, did the court apply

*rule of law segment should only include the actual statutes, constitutional amendments or cases the Court applies the facts

Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?

*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law

Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?

United States v. KING

[Kenneth King was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine within 1,000 feet of a schoolyard. The cocaine was found during the search of a basement in a two-family dwelling in which he resided. The search was conducted under the authority of a warrant. King filed a motion to suppress the cocaine on the grounds that affidavit submitted in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that illegal drugs would be found on the premises. The district court conducted a hearing and thereafter denied the motion to suppress. King was convicted and appealed. This case has been included because of its unusually clear discussion of the factors courts consider in evaluating whether probable cause for the issuance of a warrant has been established.] Copyrighted materialThe Fourth Amendment guarantees that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation." The warrant requirement serves to interpose between the police and an individual's per- sonal privacy an orderly procedure involv- ing "a neutral and detached magistrate[, ]" who is responsible for making an "informed and deliberate determination" on the issue of probable cause. The warrant process thus avoids allowing the determination of proba- ble cause to rest with the "zealous" actions of the police who are "engaged in the often com- petitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Probable cause is defined as "reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere sus- picion," that "there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." This determi nation does not lend itself to the application of "[rigid legal rules," and no one decision Copyrightedmay serve to provide a denitive basis upon which to rely inasmuch as \"informant's tips, like all other clues and evidence . . . may vary greatly in the value and reliability.\" Rather, the probable cause standard is a \"'practical non-technical conception . . . [wherein] we deal with probabilities . . . [which are] the factual and practical considerations of every- day life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' \" Stated oth- erwise, \"probable eause is a uid concept turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contextsnot readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. lnformants' tips doubtless come in many shapes and sizes from many different types of persons. . . . Rigid legal rules are ill-suited to an area of such diversity. One simple rule will not cover every situation.\" As such, the issuing magistrate must apply a \"totality of the circumstances" test to prob- able cause issues. This test requires the mag- istrate to \"make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the afdavit before him, includ- ing the 'veraeity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying the hearsay information,\" probable cause exists. The Supreme Court identified factors which, although not to be analyzed as "sepa- rate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case," should be weighed by a reviewing court in assessing the value that should be afforded to an infor- mant's tip when determining whether a sub- stantial basis for probable cause exists. These factors, which consist of the "veracity" or "reliability" as well as "basis of knowledge" of the tip, are relative where the strength of one factor may compensate for the defi- ciency of another. However, "the informa- tion presented must be sufficient to allow the official to independently determine probable cause; 'his action cannot be a mere ratifica tion of the bare conclusions of others.'" "In order to ensure that such an abdication of the magistrate's duty does not occur, courts must continue to conscientiously review the suf- ficiency of affidavits on which warrants are issued." With these standards and caution- ary instructions from the Supreme Court in mind, we turn to the affidavit presented to the magistrate in this case to determine whether,under a totality of the circumstances, the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrant to issue. The affidavit submitted to the court by Detective John Gannon of the Cleveland Police Department in support of the search warrant in question provided as follows: Before me, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, personally appeared the undersigned Det. John Gannon, # 2452, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is mem- ber of the Police Department of the City of Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and that his training and experience include: twenty-six years experience with the Cleveland Police, with a current assign- ment to the Caribbean Gang Task Force; training in the recognition, production, and distribution of controlled substances; over one thousand arrests for drug-related offenses. Affiant has good cause to believe that onAiant has good cause to beiieve that on the premises known as 1437 East 116th Street, Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and being more fully described as the downstairs unit in a two family, two and one half story, white wood sided dwelling with green trim, the numbers \"1439,\" the address for the upstairs unit, clearly visible on the south side of the entrance door to the upstairs unit, the structure being located on the east side of East 116th Street, facing west, and in the vehicle described as 1980's model gray Chevrolet Cavalier, Ohio Temporary License Number [(591513, there is now being kept, concealed, and possessed the following evidence of criminal offense: Cocaine, and other narcotic drugs, and/ or controlled substances; instruments and paraphernalia used in taking or preparing drugs for sale, use, or shipment; records of illegal transactions including comput- ers and computer les, articles of personal property, and papers tending to establish the identity of the persons in control of the premises; other contraband, including, but not limited to, money, communications equipment, motor vehicles, and weapons being illegally possessed therein; and/ or any and all evidence pertaining to the where drugs are used, kept, or sold, and violations of the laws of the State of Ohio, the size of useable quantities of drugs to wit: are small, making them easy to conceal on one's person. 1. Within the past twenty-four hours, affiant was contacted by another 7. Further, in the experience of affiant, a confidential reliable informant persons who traffic in illegal drugs concerning the delivery of a large frequently keep records of illegal quantity of crack cocaine to the above- transactions, at times using computers described premises. for such records, and evidence of communications used in the furtherance 2. This information from confidential of drug trafficking activity, including, reliable informant (CRI) indicated but not limited to, pagers, cellular that Kenneth King was trafficking in telephones, answering machines, and cocaine, and had crack cocaine at the answering machine tapes. above-described premises having been delivered to King by Antonio Cook 8. Further, in the experience of the affiant, within the past day. persons who traffic in illegal drugs frequently keep weapons, such as 3. CRI is made reliable in that CRI firearms, on or about their person or has given information to the law within their possession, for use against enforcement official which has led to law enforcement officials, as well as the arrest and/or conviction of more other citizens. than seventy individuals for violations of state and/or federal drug laws, 9. Permitting a motor vehicle to be used in as well as the confiscateon of more the commission of a felony drug abuse than $100,000.00 and 5 kilograms of offense is a violation of R.C. 2925.13. controlled substances. 10. Affiant avers that it is urgently CRI necessary that the above-mentionedthe arrest and/or conviction of more other citizens. than seventy individuals for violations of state and/or federal drug laws, 9. Permitting a motor vehicle to be used in as well as the confiscateon of more the commission of a felony drug abuse than $100,000.00 and 5 kilograms of offense is a violation of R.C. 2925.13. controlled substances. 10. Affiant avers that it is urgently 4. CRI stated that King kept drugs at the necessary that the above-mentioned above-described premises, giving a premises be searched in the night description of the premises, and King season forthwith to prevent the above utilized the above-described vehicle named property from being concealed for the purpose of making deliveries or removed so as not to be found, and of smaller amounts of crack cocaine. for the safety of the executing officers. Investigation revealed that the above- described address is listed in the records Defendant argues that the affidavit was of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles insufficient to establish probable cause as an address for vehicles registered to insofar as it fails to provide any basis as to Kenneth King. the reliability or veracity of the confidential informant, and fails to indicate that Detective 5. Affiant is also aware that Antonio Cook Gannon conducted an independent investi- is a person known to members of the gation to corroborate the informant's alle- Task Force as a supplier of cocaine on gations. Defendant contends that Detective the east side of Cleveland. Affiant also Gannon's verification of Defendant's address, determined that King has a prior felony via the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles, conviction for GSI and Aggravated as being that alleged by the informant as a Assault and has done prison time. place where drugs were being trafficked, was inadequate to corroborate the infor- 6. In the experience of affiant, narcotic mant's claims. Defendant further contends drugs are frequently carried or con- that because the affidavit does not aver that cealed on people who are at locations the confidential informant observed drugs orDefendant argues that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause insofar as it fails to provide any basis as to the reliability or veracity of the confidential informant, and fails to indicate that Detective Gannon conducted an independent investi- gation to corroborate the informant's alle- gations. Defendant contends that Detective Gannon's verification of Defendant's address, via the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles, as being that alleged by the informant as a place where drugs were being trafficked, was inadequate to corroborate the infor- mant's claims. Defendant further contends that because the affidavit does not aver that the confidential informant observed drugs orResult 1 of 1 in this book for Defendant further contends that because the affidavit does not aver that the confidential informant observed dmgs or paraphernalia on the premises of Defendant's home corroboration by Detective Gannon was particularly necessary