We need not rely, however, upon the anonymous tip, as we believe that there were sufficient facts without the anonymous tip upon which to base a valid warrant. We agree, however, that an informant who contacts the police through the Silent Witness program commands a greater expectation of reliability than the average police informant. State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 241, 655 P.2d 358, 361 (App. 1982); State v. Collins, 21 Ariz. App. 575, 578, 522 P.2d 40, 43 (1974). Unlike the usual police informant who frequently seeks some favor from the police in return for his information, the silent witness generally wants nothing in return for his or her tip. Absent other evidence as to the corrupt motive of the anonymous caller, such an informant is considered reliable and credible.
Therefore, “a[n] affidavit used to support a search warrant ‘must speak as of the time of the issue of that warrant.’ ” State v. Kasold, 110 Ariz. 563, 566, 521 P.2d 995, 998 (1974) (quoting Sgro, 287 U.S. at 211, 53 S.Ct. 138); see also State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 241, 655 P.2d 358, 361 (App.1982) (presuming information was stale, and incapable of supporting probable cause, where there was no indication as to the dates of the alleged illegal activity). ¶ 32 Based upon the record before us, the affidavits were based heavily upon information from informants who had, at best, limited personal knowledge of Frimmel's hiring and record-keeping practices, and the timeliness of information they provided expired long before the warrant was sought.
Therefore, “a[n] affidavit used to support a search warrant ‘must speak as of the time of the issue of that warrant.’ ” State v. Kasold, 110 Ariz. 563, 566, 521 P.2d 995, 998 (1974) (quoting Sgro, 287 U.S. at 211, 53 S.Ct. 138 ); see also State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 241, 655 P.2d 358, 361 (App.1982) (presuming information was stale, and incapable of supporting probable cause, where there was no indication as to the dates of the alleged illegal activity).¶ 32 Based upon the record before us, the affidavits were based heavily upon information from informants who had, at best, limited personal knowledge of Frimmel's hiring and record-keeping practices, and the timeliness of information they provided expired long before the warrant was sought.
An anonymous caller reporting a crime, however, is entitled to a greater measure of credibility. State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 241, 655 P.2d 358, 361 (App. 1982); State v. Stanhope, 139 Ariz. 88, 91, 676 P.2d 1146, 1149 (App. 1984). "Unlike the usual police informant who frequently seeks some favor from the police in return for his information, the silent witness generally wants nothing in return for his or her tip."
Amendment's probable cause and particularity requirements. See State v. Roark, 198 Ariz. 550, 552, ¶ 8, 12 P.3d 225, 227 (App. 2000); State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 240, 655 P.2d 358, 360 (App. 1982) (citing A.R.S. § 13-3913). ¶11 To determine if a proposed search is based on probable cause, "the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place."
Some jurisdictions have interpreted Spinelli as requiring that the independent corroboration must be of incriminating details, not innocent activity. See State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 655 P.2d 358, 361 (Ariz. App. 1982); Rutledge v. United States, 392 A.2d 1062, 1066 (D.C. 1978). In Jacumin, our Supreme Court started its analysis of Illinois v. Gates, supra, by referring to Justice White's concurring opinion which stated that the critical issue regarding corroborating information was not whether the observed activities were innocent or suspicious, but whether the "corroboration of the informer's story gave rise to an inference that the informant was credible and that he had obtained the information in a reliable manner."
The vehicle was seized and taken to the station where the trunk was opened and found to contain 153 pounds of marijuana. The trial court apparently relied on the Division One opinion in State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 655 P.2d 358 (App. 1982). That opinion, following the Aguilar-Spinelli test, held that corroboration of an informant's tip must be of incriminating details and not just innocent activity.
In addition, an anonymous "crime stop" caller is entitled to greater credibility than the usual police informant. State v. Turney, 134 Ariz. 238, 655 P.2d 358 (App. 1982); State v. Summerlin, 138 Ariz. 426, 675 P.2d 686 (1983). The legality of the detention order is most important because of all the evidence which was subsequently obtained.