Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Illinois v. Gates

Supreme Court of the United States

October 13, 1982, Argued ; June 8, 1983, Decided

No. 81-430


 [*216]  [***534]  [**2320]    JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondents Lance and Susan Gates were indicted for violation of state drug laws after police officers, executing a search warrant, discovered marihuana and other contraband in their automobile and home. Prior to trial the Gateses moved to suppress evidence seized during this  [**2321]  search. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of lower state courts granting the motion. 85 Ill. 2d 376, 423 N. E. 2d 887 (1981). It held that the affidavit submitted in support of the State's application for a warrant to search the Gateses' property  [*217]  was inadequate under this Court's decisions in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969). [****8]  

We granted certiorari to consider the application of the Fourth Amendment to a magistrate's issuance of a search warrant on the basis of a partially corroborated anonymous informant's tip. 454 U.S. 1140 (1982). After receiving briefs and hearing oral argument on this question, however, we requested the parties to address an additional question:

"[Whether] the rule requiring the exclusion at a criminal trial of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), should to any extent be modified, so as, for example, not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in the reasonable belief that the search and seizure at issue  [***535]  was consistent with the Fourth Amendment." 459 U.S. 1028 (1982).

 We decide today, with apologies to all, that the issue we framed for the parties was not presented to the Illinois courts and, accordingly, do not address it. Rather, we consider the question originally presented in the petition for certiorari,  [****9]  and conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court read the requirements of our Fourth Amendment decisions too restrictively. Initially, however, we set forth our reasons for not addressing the question regarding modification of the exclusionary rule framed in our order of November 29, 1982. Ibid.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

462 U.S. 213 *; 103 S. Ct. 2317 **; 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 ***; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 54 ****; 51 U.S.L.W. 4709


Subsequent History:  [****1]  Reargued March 1, 1983.


Disposition:  85 Ill. 2d 376, 423 N. E. 2d 887, reversed.


probable cause, informant, exclusionary rule, tip, reliability, corroboration, prong, cases, the Fourth Amendment, courts, state court, decisions, veracity, probable-cause, circumstances, good-faith, police officer, narcotics, suppression, predictions, modified, arrest, credibility, two-pronged, details, informant's tip, search warrant, drugs, reliable way, modification

Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction on Certiorari, Considerations Governing Review, State Court Decisions, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, General Overview, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure, Exclusionary Rule, Criminal Law & Procedure, Exclusionary Rule, Search Warrants, Confidential Informants, Probable Cause, Preliminary Proceedings, Arraignments, Procedural Matters, Warrants, Warrantless Searches, Consent to Search, Probable Cause, Pretrial Motions & Procedures, Suppression of Evidence, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Deferential Review, Probable Cause Determinations, Exigent Circumstances, Information From Others, Reasonable & Prudent Standard