Cited by

Under even the most strict analysis this court has enunciated to assess the credibility of informants, State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974); State v. Carroll, 131 N.H. at 192, 552 A.2d at 77 (Batchelder, J., concurring), the affidavit here would be sufficient.

The defendant, on the other hand, urges this court to adopt the four-part test of State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 325 A.2d 794 (1974) as the appropriate State constitutional standard.

In State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 325 A.2d 794 (1974), this court, applying the prevailing federal constitutional analysis at that time, set forth a list of “some of the basic requirements for a valid search warrant” based upon information received from an informant.

Specifically, the defendant submits that his trial counsel should have urged the trial court to apply the two-pronged test of State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 325 A.2d 794 (1974) as a State standard for passing on the sufficiency of the foundation for accepting informer evidence.

The defendant argues on appeal that the affidavit submitted in support of the application for a warrant failed to satisfy the requirements of either State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 325 A.2d 794 (1974) or Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

The court followed this procedure in concluding that the warrant was valid.

He argues, first, that Sergeant Carpenito’s affidavit included information said to have been supplied by Fields, that Fields was an “informant,” and that the affidavit failed to satisfy the requirements of State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974) for use of an informer’s statements in obtaining a warrant.

In so framing his argument, the defendant relies on the analytical framework of State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 325 A.2d 794 (1974).

Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2334 (1983); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 109 n.1 (1964) (affidavit only related that reliable information had been received from credible person; if the facts and results of a police surveillance had been brought to magistrate’s attention, an “entirely different case” would have been presented); State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637-38, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974).

Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983); see also State v. Beaulieu, 119 N.H. 400, 403, 402 A.2d 178, 180 (1979); State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637-38, 325 A.2d 794, 795-96 (1974).

[and] how [he] got the information; i.e., by personal observation or from another informer or otherwise.” State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974).

.” Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 486 (1968); see Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964); State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974).

State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974); State v. Moreau, 113 N.H. 303, 307, 306 A.2d 764, 766 (1973); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 416 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964).

at 413; Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964); State v. Moreau, 113 N.H. 303, 307, 306 A.2d 764, 766 (1973); see State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974).

The defendant first contends that the affidavit fails in that the statements of the named informant do not comport with the requirements enunciated in State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974).

State v. Mandravelis, 114 N.H. 634, 637-38, 325 A.2d 794, 796 (1974); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965).