# Aguilar v. Texas

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 15, 1964 · 378 U.S. 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422846

## Case

- **Full name:** Aguilar v. Texas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 15, 1964
- **Citations:** 378 U.S. 108; 84 S. Ct. 1509; 12 L. Ed. 2d 723; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 994
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan
- **Judges:** Goldberg, Harlan, Clark, Black, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 6,220 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
- Negative treatments: 4
- Distinguished by: 8
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422846

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that affidavit stating that “[a]ffiants have received reliable information from a credible person and do believe” that narcotics were “being kept at the above described premises” was insufficient because “the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying cir…
- holding that, in most cases, statements against penal interest áre inherently reliable
- holding that, in most cases, statements against penal interest are inherently reliable
- stating that a warrant affidavit must provide the magistrate with at least “some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant . . . was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable’ ”
- holding that one of the defects in the affidavit was its failure to inform the magistrate “of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
But for Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 , I would have voted to affirm the judgment of the Texas court. Given Ker , I cannot escape the conclusion that to do so would tend to “relax Fourth Amendment standards ... in derogation of law enforcement standards in the federal system . . .” (my concurring opinion in Ker, supra, at 45-46 , emphasis added). Contrary to what is suggested in the dissenting opinion of my Brother Clark in the present case (post, p. 118, note 1), the standards laid down in Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 , did in my view reflect constitutional requirements. Being unwilling to relax those standards for federal prosecutions, I concur in the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422846. Public record. Not legal advice.