Is "hearsay" enough to get a search warrent?

[newpump]

Hey guys/Rick - I have another question for you (I did a search, but did not find anything - forgive me if my search criteria sucked ).

Here is the situation - suppose that many people at your gym are begining to circulate rumors about AAS use in general at the gym - to the point that the local police are "aware" (many of them are juicers too - so they frequent the gym as well) of the rumors. Here comes question number one:

1. Is there anything to fear yet (ie. is this hearsay enough for the local PD to get a search warrent/check credit card purchases etc).

Ok - now follow the concern to its logical conclusion - a few of the bros at the gym (not you) do AAS AND rec drugs (typical stupidity). Suppose they get popped for rec drug possession and the local PD manage to squeeze some AAS or an AAS confesion out of the rec drug user. Here comes question number two:

2. Is an aligation from the guy/gal who gets popped that I use AAS enough to obtain a search warrent for my house?

As you might be able to tell - the heat is turning up a bit at the local gym - I'm wondering if I should "clean house" (and dump 600 bucks or so out) or chill and just keep my damn mouth shut. Here are some details:

1. I have never purchased from a local dealer
2. I have purchased from some research sites (not any that have been popped lately) with my credit card.

What do ya think Rick/experts?

 

[The Wenis]

if you're that worried go talk to a lawyer. shouldn't cost that much for an initial consultation and the conversation is privileged.

in my state hearsay can be sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant. however, given your last two points, i wouldn't think the locals would be much interested in you. if someone tells them they "think" you are using, at most that may get your name in someone's notebook. i don't see pc for a warrant here. other opinions?

 

[ACF]

PC

I started a new thread to let all know.

 

[nycdefender]

For many jurisdictions, hearsay evidence is admissible in the application for the warrant. But the hearsay must meet the Aguilar-Spinelli two-pronged test. [the name Aguilar-Spinelli is based upon two U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1964 and 1969, respectively]. Prong one is commonly called the "reliability" prong, and prong two is commonly referred to as the "basis of knowledge" prong. The test, therefore, is whether the informant, who is supplying the hearsay, is reliable and did he/she have a basis of knowledge for making that hearsay statement?

Probable cause can even be based upon chains of hearsay, provided each link satisfies the Aguilar-Spinelli test (at least, that is true in New York).

 

[BaadOldBear]

For many jurisdictions, hearsay evidence is admissible in the application for the warrant. But the hearsay must meet the Aguilar-Spinelli two-pronged test. [the name Aguilar-Spinelli is based upon two U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1964 and 1969, respectively]. Prong one is commonly called the "reliability" prong, and prong two is commonly referred to as the "basis of knowledge" prong. The test, therefore, is whether the informant, who is supplying the hearsay, is reliable and did he/she have a basis of knowledge for making that hearsay statement?

Probable cause can even be based upon chains of hearsay, provided each link satisfies the Aguilar-Spinelli test (at least, that is true in New York).

The federal rule is a bit trickier but looser. "Reasonable suspicion" is enough to do a "Terry search" (frisk) and for an area of "legitimate expectation of privacy" evidence must be of such a nature "that one may make a decision of serious importance" regarding the alleged transaction before a warrant may issue. In reality the cops will fill in the right language for the "witness" to sign an affidavit or the witness "is a reliable source" of alleged transaction to the extent that an officer may swear to such on the affidavit without mention of the witness' name.
In arkansas when push comes to shove the same "witnesses" allege knowledge of the perp and the circumstances, and in the one case where the lawyer was clever enough to trip one of them up the court legitimately(yeah right) will grant the validity of the warrant based on the "good faith" of the officer in believing his "witness".