Summary

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Ventresca — Opinion of the Court

While the Court of Appeals recognized that an affidavit based on hearsay will be sufficient, 'so long as a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay is presented,' Jones v. United States, supra, 362 U.S., at 269, 80 S.Ct., at 735, it felt that no such basis existed here because the hearsay consisted of reports by 'Investigators,' and the affidavit did not recite how the Investigators obtained their information.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Ventresca — Opinion of the Court

Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.' Johnson v. United States, supra, 333 U.S., at 13 14, 68 S.Ct., at 369.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Ventresca — Opinion of the Court

A qualified officer's detection of the smell of mash has often been held a very strong factor in determining that probable cause exists so as to allow issuance of a warrant. [3] Moreover, upon reading the affidavit as a whole, it becomes clear that the detailed ovservations recounted in the affidavit cannot fairly be regarded as having been made in any significant part by persons other than full-time Investigators of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature