Need Help!!!!!!! 4 to life

What is the name of your state? Oklahoma
Do they need evidence for a search warrant or can they just take someones word on it.?
Heres my story i'll try and keep it short. I had a no knock search warrant served on me.
I was caught growing marijuana for personal use. well when i got out of jail and read the affadavid it said one of my good friends was the snitch and told them he had delivered hundreds of pounds " 200,000 dollars worth" for me and i delivered all across the country. Shoot i wished, i live in a unpaid for doublewide and owe money on both my cars. Not wealthy by any means nor have i ever seen $200,000. They found 9000 that i have proof of how i got it.
He said i was not just a street level dealer but a trafficer. But he couldnt remeber where or who he had delivered it to.He said he was at my house and played cards with me on 01/20/2007 but i havent seen him since 5/01/06. he said he spent the night and observed me watering. Well he didnt play cards and i have all my card buddies to prove it. And i found he had a myspace account and had email several people why he was supposed to be here. All of the warrant was lies . They said on the affidavid that he had narced in the past so they took his word on in. By the way he was in jail at the time. . Can they get a warrant on just his word? Dont they have to do a buy, or mark money, or put a wire on him? If they sent him to my house why no proof. They have absolutly no proof i have never sold any pot but yet they gave me 6 felony counts on just his word?


thanks for listening T

Under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, the sufficiency of probable cause necessary to support the issuance of a search warrant (predicated on information received from and informant) is based on the "totality of circumstances". See Gates v Illinois 462 US 213 (1983), which abrogated the Agullar/Spinelli "two-pronged" test. What Gates did was replace the formulaic test, based exclusively on the prior credibility of the informant, with one that considers all factors that corroborate the informant.

The Gates standard has been adopted in Oklahoma, Langham v State 787 P2d 1279 (1990), so "Under the totality-of-the-circumstances approach, the task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id at 1281.

In your case gforceauto the magistrate who issued the warrant obviously determined that the totality of the circumstances supported the credibility of the informant. Even if the reviewing Judge disagrees with the issuing magistrate, the warrant may still be valid under the Leon "good faith" standard. See Miles v State 742 P2d 1150 (1987).

The answer to your question can only be determined in a suppression hearing.

I'm not sure I understand - you say you got caught growing "for personal use," but also that you're facing 4 to life?

Obviously, you need a lawyer - but you knew that, right?

As far as the informant goes, there are two different standards here. For a warrant, they need "probable cause." For a conviction they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What that means is that they may have enough for the warrant , but not enough to convict you of anything beyond what they actually found in your house.

If you get a lawyer, and he files the appropriate motions, gets a hearing, and convinces the judge, you might even be able to get the pot they found in your house thrown out. The issue will be not whether the informant was reliable, but whether it was reasonable for the police to rely on him.

Get a lawyer.

i say it was for personal use, they say im the worse person they ever met and have charged me with 6 counts. i have a lawyer but i wanted "needed" a second or third or fourth opinion. I cannont believe they can take a 5 time felons word with absolutly no evidence.