McBride v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Harrelson v. State

    897 So. 2d 1237 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that affiant's statement that "[i]nformation was also received from the informant indicating that the suspect stored some of the stolen property in an open-faced barn structure located approximately 1/4 mile east of the suspect's residence," speaks to the current state of affairs at the time of the execution of the affidavit

    In Vinson, the Alabama Supreme Court evaluated the warrant issued in that case and the supporting affidavit according to the circumstances of that case. An explanation for the genesis of that "totality of the circumstances" approach can be found in McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986). The affidavit underlying the warrant in McBride, in terms of staleness, contained only the statement that the informant "has in the past observed" contraband in McBride's home. 492 So.2d at 656.

  2. Harris v. State

    948 So. 2d 583 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 17 times
    In Harris, after quoting extensively from California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), and Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999), we stated: "No additional exigent circumstances are required for the warrantless search of a vehicle; probable cause alone is sufficient to bring a search within the automobile exception."

    . . . First-hand observations of criminal activity by a reliable informant in conjunction with police corroboration of factual details provides just this probability."'" Harrelson v. State, 897 So.2d 1237, 1241 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004), quoting McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654, 658 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986), quoting in turn United States v. Thompson, 751 F.2d 300, 302 (8th Cir.1985). Initially, we note that on appeal Harris confines his probable-cause argument to those circumstances that occurred before the officers' entry onto his premises.

  3. Rider v. State

    549 So. 2d 526 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    "The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution's case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654, 658 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). Although the 'good faith' exception does not apply to a 'bare bones' affidavit or one so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable, the affidavit in this case was not so lacking. Crittenden v. State, 476 So.2d at 635.

  4. Moss v. State

    536 So. 2d 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 14 times

    The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution's case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654, 658 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). Although the "good faith" exception does not apply to a "bare bones" affidavit or one so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable, the affidavit in this case was not so lacking.

  5. Robinette v. State

    531 So. 2d 682 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 35 times
    In Robinette v. State, 531 So.2d 682 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 531 So.2d 697 (Ala. 1988), this Court upheld the search of a vehicle parked in the yard of a residence at which law-enforcement officers had executed a search warrant.

    Even if the affidavit were defective and the warrant invalid in this case, the evidence seized was not due to be suppressed, because of the officer's good faith reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). There is no question here that the officer acted in good faith, that the magistrate was impartial and neutral, and that the warrant with the affidavit attached was such that the officer could reasonably rely upon its sufficiency.

  6. State v. Taylor

    510 So. 2d 849 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)

    ' " 462 U.S. at 235, 103 S.Ct. at 2330. The state further relies on our decision in McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), in which this court held: "Notwithstanding . . . failure to specify time of . . . informant's observation of the contraband, the affidavit provided the magistrate with . . . probable cause."

  7. McCammon v. State

    499 So. 2d 811 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 17 times
    In McCammon, the area from which the plants were seized was clearly not open to anyone who might pass by, and was one in which the defendants had a legitimate expectation of privacy, and thus, was subject to the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    This is a sound result. . . .' W. LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure, ยง 3.3, p. 510 (1978)." McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). Further, as previously noted, the informant's tip was corroborated by the police officer's observation of approximately three large marijuana plants on the appellant's deck.