Confidential Informant Reliability

Informant Reliability
Confidential informant, reliability, Darren Chaker writes about.

Darren Chaker finds that when a Confidential Informant (CI) is used in connection with a criminal investigation, the court will look at several indicia of reliability when determining probable cause to issue a search or arrest warrant. The most common are include,
Informant’s history of truthfulness shows reliability. See United States v. Goodson, 165 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 1999) (reliability of a confidential informant can be established if the person has a history of providing law enforcement officials with truthful information).
Corroboration of information shows informant’s reliability. See United States v. Miner, 108 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 1997) (investigating officer’s confirmation of confidential informant’s incriminating information provided probable cause for search warrant on defendant’s home); United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200 (5th Cir 1996) (search warrant valid where informants’ information was corroborated by other informants and by police investigation). But see United States v. Clark, 31 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 1994) (mere confirmation of static details in an anonymous tip is not ”corroboration”).
Personal observation by informant shows reliability. See United States v. Allen, 168 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 1999); Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341 (10th Cir. 1997) (affidavit based on informant’s personal observation of controlled substance) (affidavit based on informant’s observation of defendant transporting and firing machine gun).
Informant’s history of truthfulness shows reliability. See United States v. Goodson, 165 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 1999) (reliability of a confidential informant can be established if the person has a history of providing law enforcement officials
with truthful information).

In the absence of reliability, it is common for the defense to file a motion to suppress evidence if the CI’s information was used as the backbone of probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

© 2011 Darren Chaker. All Rights Reserved.

Written by 

Greetings - I am Darren Chaker. I litigated a cutting edge First Amendment case for 7 of its 10 year lifespan. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, invalidated a statute on First Amendment grounds and overruled the California Supreme Court‘s unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633. Soon after Chaker v. Crogan, it was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, *2+ (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). My case is a leading case on viewpoint discrimination. In a recent case, Chaker v. Crogan was used to vindicate people who filed a complaint against police. Those people were arrested and charged with a law Chaker v. Crogan invalidated! They sued for being arrested and charged with an unconstitutional statute, Penal Code 148.6. The federal court denied the City's motion to dismiss and the case settled. See Cuadra v. City of South San Francisco, 2010 WL 55875, *1+ (N.D.Cal. Jan 04, 2010) I love the fight and made cutting edge case law in the end. No doubt without the support of the ACLU (Ramona Ripston, Mark Rosenbaum, Peter Eliasberg, & Dan Tokaji) winning on appeal, and Joshua Rosenkranz www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=225990 assembling a small army of the best attorneys to defeat the California Attorney General's efforts to have the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the Ninth Circuit---this case would not have had a backbone to stand on. The case has been cited over 196 times as authority, and written about extensively. * Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation s 2:28, Denial of First Amendment rights (2009) * Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech s 3:11, Viewpoint discrimination--Cross-burning reprised: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Black--Heavy presumption against viewpoint discrimination (2010) * Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech s 10:22.50, Brandenburg v. Ohio: Intent and imminence standard--Bond and Watts decisions--"True threats" (2010) * CHAKER V. CROGAN, 5 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 425, 444+ (2007) My case is active, living and breathing—forever helping people who once felt oppressed.

Leave a Reply