
    The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Willie Boler, et al., Appellee.
    (No. 55013;
    First District
    — October 20, 1971.
    Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle, and Joseph H. Romano, of counsel,) for appellant.
   Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE ADESKO

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal by the State, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a), from an order quashing a search warrant and suppressing evidence seized thereunder. The defendants, Willie Boler and Oscar Hubbard, were charged with the offense of gambling. On motion of the defendants, the court suppressed all evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant on the ground that the affidavit in support thereof did not establish probable cause.

On appeal the State contends that the complaint for issuance of the search warrant contained sufficient facts to establish probable cause. It recites in substance that the affiant, Detective Sherwood Williams, received information from a reliable informant and that the affiant had probable cause to believe that gambling paraphernalia was kept in the basement premises at 1536 East 66th Place, Chicago, Illinois. In the past, the informant had furnished information relative to policy gambling on five occasions which had led to five arrests. Large quantities of policy writings (bet slips) and policy result tickets were found at each of the above-mentioned arrests.

The affidavit further recited that the informer had observed the defendant, Willie Boler, printing policy result tickets in the basement at 1536 East 66th Place, Chicago, Illinois. The informant also stated that he had formerly been employed with Boler while working for the Windy City-Big Town-Subway policy wheel. Boler met runners at various locations and distributed result tickets to them.

Detective Williams observed Boler enter the basement at 1536 East 66th Place, empty-handed. Later the defendant, Boler, left carrying a shopping bag. He observed Boler take small brown paper bags from the shopping bag and distribute them to known policy runners. Detective Williams followed Henry Ivory, a known policy runner, after Ivory had received one of the bags from Boler. Ivory was followed to 4307 S. Oakenwald, Chicago, Illinois, where Williams observed Ivory enter and place some white slips partially under a door. After Ivory left, Williams retrieved one of the slips upon which was stamped Windy City-Big Town-Subway. The affiant supported his claim that the informant was credible by obtaining his corroborating evidence.

In Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108, the United States Supreme Court stated at page 114:

“The magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant * * 8 was ‘credible’ or his information ‘rehable’.”

In the instant case, the affidavit stated that the informant had been employed with the defendant, Boler, while working for the Windy City-Big Town-Subway policy wheel. The informant personally observed Boler printing policy result tickets in the basement at 1536 East 66th Place. These were the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the gambling paraphernalia was where he claimed it was.

The affiant stated that the informant had given him information relative to policy gambling on five occasions which led to five arrests. Large quantities of policy writings (bet slips) and policy result tickets were found at each of the above-mentioned arrests. In view of the informant’s past correct information, the court had before it some of the underlying circumstances from which the officers concluded that the informant was reliable.

In Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410, the United States Supreme Court stated at page 415:

“If the tip is found inadequate under Aguilar, the other allegations which corroborate the information contained in the hearsay report should then be considered. * * * [The court] must ask: Can it fairly be said that the tip, even when certain parts of it have been corroborated by independent sources, is as trustworthy as a tip which would pass Aguilar's tests without independent corroboration.”

The answer to the above question is yes and the search warrant therefore meets the standards set forth in Spinelli.

Accordingly, the search warrant was lawfully issued and it was error to have quashed the warrant and suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search. Therefore, we are reversing the order appealed from and remanding the cause with directions that it be reinstated for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

BURMAN and DIERINGER, JJ„ concur.  