SHORES, Justice. Petition of Louis E. Neugent, alias, for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Neugent, alias v. State, 340 So.2d 43. WRIT DENIED.

BLOODWORTH, Justice. We granted this petition for writ of certiorari, filed by the State, seeking our review and reversal of a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 43, wherein that court reversed and remanded a judgment of conviction of one Neugent for illegal possession of amphetamines. The reversal was based upon the conclusion of a majority of that court that the affidavit, supporting the search warrant, did not sufficiently aver "probable cause" in that it failed to meet the first "prong" test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), i.e., requiring that the magistrate be informed of some of the "underlying circumstances" from which the informant concluded that the drugs were where he claimed they were.

If the additional information, together with the affidavit information, supports issuance of the warrant, then it is saved. Mayes v. State, 47 Ala. App. 672, 260 So. 2d 403 (1972); Neugent v. State, 340 So. 2d 43 (Ala. Cr. App. 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 340 So. 2d 52 (Ala. 1976). We view the evidence from the position of the magistrate who issues the warrant, and attempt to determine what information was in that official’s possession at the time of the issuance of the warrant.

To cope with the problem of conclusory affidavits, we have adopted the rule that the court may look beyond the affidavit to ascertain what other information may have been furnished the magistrate. If the additional information, together with the affidavit information, supports issuance of the warrant, then it is saved. Mayes v. State, 47 Ala. App. 672, 260 So.2d 403 (1972); Neugent v. State, 340 So.2d 43 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975), rev'd on other grounds, 340 So.2d 52 (Ala. 1976). We view the evidence from the position of the magistrate who issues the warrant, and attempt to determine what information was in that official's possession at the time of the issuance of the warrant.

"Information from an unnamed informant must be corroborated with enough independent facts supplied by the affiant, before an affidavit in support of a search warrant can engender in the mind of an impartial magistrate a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant." and cites as support for such proposition Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637; Davis v. State, 46 Ala. App. 45, 237 So.2d 635; Neugent v. State, Ala., 340 So.2d 52, rev'g Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 43. In arguing the proposition advanced, appellant merely states:

BOOKOUT, Judge. This Court originally reversed the appellant's conviction, Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 43. We were reversed by the Alabama Supreme Court, Ala., 340 So.2d 52. Following remandment by that Court, we summarily affirmed, on mandate of the Supreme Court, on August 24, 1976, 58 Ala. App., 340 So.2d 55. On rehearing the appellant raises certain points which were raised but not considered by this Court on the original appeal. Since we had concluded that the affidavit was insufficient to support the search warrant, we had pretermitted consideration of other alleged errors.