Spinelli v. United States:   
United States Supreme Court, 1969. 

Statement of the Case:

      Government is prosecuting Spinelli for illegal gambling activities but derived probable cause for a warrant from a reliable informant’s information and checking that the informant gave a proper phone number as information.

Procedure:

      Trial court convicted ?.

Facts:

      Reliable informant told officers that Spinelli was conducting gambing activities over a phone line of a certain number.  The officers checked the phone line and it was the same number, under a different name.  Spinelli was observed entering the building in question and the apartment.  The FBI then got a warrant, arrested him, and saw the allegations were true. 

Issue:

      Whether probable cause for a warrant can be established when a reliable informant’s informs about the activities, his information about a  phone number used by the ? was verified, and the ? was followed to the alleged location of the activities.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment reversed for the ?.

Holding:

      Probable cause for a warrant can be established when a reliable informant’s informs about the activities, his information about a  phone number used by the ? was verified, and the ? was followed to the alleged location of the activities, and was a known gambling offender.

      Probable cause must meet a 2 prong test from Aguilar:

Aguilar-Spinelli Test for Probable Cause:

1. Application must set forth any of the “underlying circumstances” necessary for the judge to independently decide the validity of the allegations against the ?, AND
2. The claim against the ? must be shown “credible” or “reliable.”

Reasoning:

      The officer swore that his informant was reliable, but he did not see any evidence.  The tip does not give the underlying circumstances from which the judge could tell the ? was offending. It is just a blanket statement that he was doing so, and the specific information could have been gathered at a bar.  This differs from Draper.

Concurring:

• The officer’s swearing is enough because of his oath so long as:

1. he has seen something himself,

2. he has seen or observed facts from which it can be inferred a crime is taking place,
3. IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT HE HEARS IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

• Draper is wrong, since the information could have come from anywhere.

Dissent:

• Nothing in the Consitution requires so much specificity.

Dissent:

• The majority acknowledges that hearsay can be enough if it is shown to be SUPER accurate.  This is hypocritical.