IN: Failure to show CI’s basis of knowledge and reason to believe him was a failure of PC and GFE

Defendant was charged with illegally harvesting ginseng based on a search warrant that lacked a proper showing of informant hearsay with no showing of basis of knowledge or why it would be believable or should be credited. Turning to the good faith exception, the court finds that it doesn’t apply either because of the failures of the showing of probable cause. McCollum v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 370 (Sept. 30, 2016). A caveat for brief writing, n.1:

We remind McCollum’s counsel that “the statement of facts in an appellate brief should be a concise narrative of the facts stated in accordance with the standard of review appropriate to the judgment and should not be argumentative.” King v. State, 799 N.E.2d 42, 45 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)), trans. denied (2004), cert. denied. Also, we disapprove of counsel’s accusation that the State has “stoop[ed]” to “desperate measures … to attempt to demonstrate the reliability and credibility of the confidential informant” mentioned in the affidavit and has “either played word games with this court or simply fabricated facts in its efforts to make an argument.” Reply Br. at 10, 11. Such hyperbolic barbs have no place in an appellate brief. Cnty. Line Towing, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 714 N.E.2d 285, 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000).