Illinois vs. Gates

Illinois vs. Gates

Facts

In this case, the police received an anonymous letter that particularly outlined specific information concerning the defendant’s side, which comprised of Gates and other individuals of the case. The particular details received by the police were concerned about the plans for drug trafficking that was to occur from Florida and Illinois. The letter illustrated the illegal business that involved Mr. and Mrs. Gates’ side trafficking drugs, and it further demonstrated the future action to the police (Hanson, 2011). Police investigation revealed that most of the tips developed within the case were correct. However, one was exceptional; hence, they obtained a judge to issue a warrant. The search warrant enabled them to discover that the defendants had drugs and weapons in their automobile and physical homes. Mr. Gates and others opt to challenge the charges and further insist that the whole process of searching their property was unlawfully conducted. The court judge during the proceedings decides to suppress all the evidence that was obtained by the police.

Issue

Whether the search warrant that was issued by the magistrate based on the incompletely corroborated evidence obtained or divulged from an informant that is not known can placate the needs of the Fourth Amendment’s feasible cause requirements?

Court Decision

The decision reached by the court ultimately reversed the judgment that was developed by the supreme court.

Reasons for Decision: by Justice William Rehnquist

The decision indicated that the statements that were corroborated by the unknown informant were sufficient enough to facilitate the provision of probable cause that satisfied the Fourth Amendment. The decision by Justice Rehnquist was based on Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. the United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) (Zalman, 2007). It helped in the determination of whether there was an existence of probable cause on the case or not. The credibility and reliability, as well as the basis of knowledge associated with the informants, were to be used as the specific guidelines in consideration of the circumstance totality within the case. Furthermore, the elements would not exclusively be applicable in every case, however.

Concurring Opinion by Justice White

Justice White concurred with the decisions of Justice Rehnquist. He indicated that the search warrant was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, he further declared that if the evidence were to be excluded, it would have contributed to setting criminals free.

Dissenting Opinion by Justice Brennan

The court was incorrect to overturn the existing precedent. Further, the declaration that was arrived at indicated that efficiency was more significant, which was a deprival of a person’s constitutional rights. Moreover, the fact that the magistrate based the decision on the tests posed a risk to minimize the powers of the magistrate and further limited his independence as a judge.

Holding

It is appropriate to indicate that the holding of the case is that the supreme court overruled the decisions that were developed by the Illinois courts. Hence, the warrant was based on partial corroborated evidence that was obtained from an informant with an unknown identity, but it satisfied the Fourth Amendment.

Case Significance

The case of Illinois v. Gates is significant as it facilitated in setting the existing precedent for search warrants requirements that are based on anonymous informants. Moreover, the members of the judiciary have the mandate to focus on the totality of instances and cannot be limited to the two test circumstances.