The police obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit that contained the following allegations: (a) Donald was seen crossing a state line on four occasions during a five-day period and going to a particular apartment; (b) telephone records disclosed that the apartment had two telephones; (c) Donald had a reputation as a bookmaker and as an associate of gamblers; and (d) the Federal Bureau of Investigation was informed by a "confidential reliable informant" that Donald was conducting gambling operations from the apartment. The affidavit did not indicate how the informant knew of this information nor did it contain any information about the reliability of the informant. When a search was made based on the warrant, evidence was obtained that resulted in Donald’s conviction of violating certain gambling laws. Donald challenged the constitutionality of the search warrant. Were Donald’s constitutional rights violated? Explain your answ

The search warrant was not sufficiently supported by the evidence to be valid.

Explanation:

The fact that Donald frequented an apartment with two telephones does not prove anything. The statement that Donald was a known gambler is an “unilluminating assertion” of suspicion that is entitled to no weight in appraising the magistrate’s decision to issue the warrant. In determining whether the informant’s tip was sufficient to issue the warrant the following factors must be considered. The affidavit stated that the confidential informant was “reliable”. However, no reason was given to support that conclusion. Additionally, the tip did not contain the underlying circumstances from which the informer concluded that Donald was running a bookmaking operation, or how the tip was obtained. “In the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusationbased merely on an individual’s general reputation.” Here the only facts supplied were that Donald was using two telephones in conducting gambling operations. This is not sufficient to show probable cause that a crime was being committed. No search warrant should have been issued and; therefore, the evidence obtained by the search was not admissible. Spinelli v. United States, 394 U. S. 410, 89, Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969).

the first part of the statute of limitations is the standard deadline, which gives victims of medical malpractice a certain number of years -- usually anywhere from two to six years, depending on the state -- after the malpractice occurred within which to file a lawsuit.