reasoning, in part, that “[p]eople do not lightly admit a crime and place critical evidence in the hands of the police in the form of their own admissions. Admissions of crime, like admissions against proprietary interests, carry their own indicia of credibility―sufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause to search”
How later courts described this case
- reasoning, in part, that “[p]eople do not lightly admit a crime and place critical evidence in the hands of the police in the form of their own admissions. Admissions of crime, like admissions against proprietary interests, carry their own indicia of credibility―sufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause to search”
- stating that “[pjeople do not lightly admit crime and place critical evidence in the hands of the police in the form of their own admissions. Admissions of crime ... carry their own indicia of credibility____”
- stating that "[p]eople do not lightly admit crime and place critical evidence in the hands of the police in the form of their own admissions. Admissions of crime ... carry their own indicia of credibility...."
- finding not “especially significant that neither the name nor the person of the informant was produced before the magistrate. The police themselves almost certainly knew his name . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by United States v. Zucco, 537 F. Supp. 901 (1982)
The vitality of Harris, a plurality opinion, has been questioned by more than one court.
Questioned by Guzewicz v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 730 (1972)
403 U.S. 573 (1971) leave us in doubt as to the continuing validity of this aspect of
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Gamboa, 23 C.M.A. 83 (1974)
United States v Harris, supra, is also distinguishable from the case at bar.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Black,
concurring..
While I join the opinion of The Chief Justice which distinguishes this case from Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969), I would go further and overrule those two cases arid wipe their holdings from the books for the reasons, among others, set forth in the dissent of Mr. Justice Clark in Aguilar , which I joined, and my dissent in Spinelli .