The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Pursuant to a warrant, D’s car was searched, and a large quantity of marijuana was discovered in the trunk. D challenged the validity of the warrant at a pretrial suppression hearing, claiming it was not supported by probable cause. The judge who issued the warrant testified that he approved the warrant because the police officers who asked for it were honest men, and they needed help to be able to search, and it was his duty as the judge to fulfill that wish. The swaying fact for issuing the warrant was that it was requested by two sworn officers of the law and not from anything about the underlying facts and circumstances presented. The trial court rejected D’s arguments and admitted the evidence. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding both that the warrant was supported by probable cause and that the conduct of the judge who signed the warrant, although not a model of judicial deportment, had satisfied the constitutional requirements of detachment and neutrality. D appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.