State v. Lingle
Also decided on this docket: La., June 27, 1983 436 So. 2d 456; La., January 10, 1983 425 So. 2d 769
State v. Lingle, 483 So. 2d 608 (La. 1986).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Jefferson v. Morton Salt Co. 436 So. 2d 456
Opinion text
DENNIS, Justice, concurring. The suggestion that the alerting of the defendant by the investigating officers of his status as a possible suspect in the homicide is relevant to the manner in which the magistrate scrutinizes the affidavit for probable cause is insupportable. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), does not even imply that the magistrate should in any way consider this factor. Furthermore, the majority’s observation, 436 So.2d 456 , that the “identification and apprehension of the offender needed to be accomplished with all possible haste” is irrelevant to the issue at hand: whether the magistrate had sufficient information from the reconstructed affidavit to support the finding of probable cause.