{ "id": 1636886, "name": "Charles SHINSKY v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Shinsky v. State", "decision_date": "1971-05-10", "docket_number": "5581", "first_page": "614", "last_page": "617", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "250 Ark. 614" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "466 S.W.2d 909" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "216 Ark. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1614281 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/216/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 U. S. 821", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11352450, 11352678, 11352264, 11352808, 11352362, 11352562, 11352147 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/389/0821-04", "/us/389/0821-06", "/us/389/0821-02", "/us/389/0821-07", "/us/389/0821-03", "/us/389/0821-05", "/us/389/0821-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 Ark. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1724135 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/241/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 U. S. 108", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6165107 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 U. S. 410", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11317375 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "248 Ark. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1597778 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/248/0125-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 338, "char_count": 4827, "ocr_confidence": 0.833, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.05337755527567e-07, "percentile": 0.5546784773938558 }, "sha256": "c5f6a6ac605c7823d9b5431847c39669dd36851ee4c447e69e0c5903050a1837", "simhash": "1:b188a0c6fbe6f0db", "word_count": 798 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:35:57.384009+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Charles SHINSKY v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment upon a jury verdiet finding him guilty of illegal possession of narcotic drugs; namely, marijuana and LSD. The drugs were discovered by police officers while they were searching a trailer occupied by Shinsky. The principal argument for reversal is that the magistrate who issued the search warrant did not have sufficient proof before him to justify the issuance of the warrant.\nThe rules of law that were controlling when this search warrant was issued are well settled. A search warrant might then be issued on the basis of oral testimony. Tygart v. State, 248 Ark. 125, 451 S. W. 2d 225 (1970). (Act 123 of 1971 now provides that the warrant be issued only upon affidavit.) The proof may consist of hearsay information, but in that event the magistrate must be furnished with underlying facts sufficient to enable him to exercise his independent judgment about the validity of the informant\u2019s conclusions and about the reliability of the informant\u2019s source of information. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1963).\nTwo witnesses testified at the hearing below on the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence. James D. Lester, a Criminal Investigator for the State Police, obtained the search warrant from Judge Engeler, the municipal judge at Mountain Home. Officer Lester identified the affidavit that he submitted to Judge Engeler, which simply stated that certain drugs would be found on Shinsky\u2019s person and in his trailer, which was sufficiently identified. The affidavit alone would not have been a sufficient basis for the issuance of the search warrant.\nJudge Engeler, before issuing the warrant, placed Officer Lester under oath and heard his testimony. Lester\u2019s testimony before the judge was to this effect: On the night of May 20, 1970, Lester was informed by John Tumage that three persons\u2014Tim Winkler, Larry Corbin, and an unidentified woman\u2014had apparently been under the influence of narcotics at Turnage\u2019s residence. Officer Lester interviewed Winkler and the woman, who admitted the truth of Turnage\u2019s statements. The two also said that they had gone to a place known as Popeye\u2019s, in Memphis, Tennessee, to obtain drugs for themselves and for several others, one of whom was the defendant Shinsky. Winkler said that he had personally delivered drugs to Shinsky and to others. Winkler also said that the drugs would be consumed at Shinsky\u2019s trailer on the evening of May 21. Under the authority of the warrant the officers searched the Shinsky trailer on that evening and found the drugs.\nThe other witness at the hearing was Judge Engeler, who corroborated Officer Lester\u2019s testimony. Upon the basis of that proof, which was not contradicted, the circuit judge held that Judge Engeler had had before him sufficient proof to sustain the issuance of the warrant.\nWe agree with the trial court. As Officer Lester pointed out, Turnage\u2019s statements were later verified in every detail by other evidence. Both Tim Winkler and the woman appeared to have direct first-hand knowledge of the facts which they related to the officers. Popeye\u2019s place was already known to the police as an outlet where illegal drugs could be purchased. Taking the testimony as a whole, we are convinced that Judge Engeler had before him sufficient evidence to enable him to reach his own independent conclusion that the underlying facts supported Officer Lester\u2019s belief that Shinsky had illegal drugs in his possession and that Lester\u2019s informants were credible and reliable sources of information. Therefore Judge Engeler was justified in finding the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.\nSecondarily, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted a continuance to permit the accused to obtain the testimony of Tim Winkler. On the date of the trial Winkler was apparently in the military service, at an overseas station. Shinsky\u2019s motion for a continuance did not disclose either what Winkler\u2019s testimony would be or when he would be available as a witness. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Winkler\u2019s testimony would be favorable to the accused; in fact, the implications are to the contrary. In the circumstances no abuse of the trial court\u2019s discretion in the matter has been shown. Fisher v. State, 241 Ark. 545, 408 S. W. 2d 894 (1966), cert. den. 389 U. S. 821 Ark. 545, 408 S. W. 2d 894 (1966), cert. den. 389 U. S. 821 (1967); Maxwell v. State, 216 Ark. 393, 225 S. W. 2d 687 (1950).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Tinnon, Crain ir Neimic, for appellant.", "Ray Thornton, Attorney General; Milton R. Lueken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Charles SHINSKY v. STATE of Arkansas\n5581\n466 S. W. 2d 909\nOpinion delivered May 10, 1971\n[Rehearing denied May 31, 1971.]\nTinnon, Crain ir Neimic, for appellant.\nRay Thornton, Attorney General; Milton R. Lueken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0614-01", "first_page_order": 644, "last_page_order": 647 }