Cited by

See State v. Ross , (setting out a CI’s previous submission of reliable information and law enforcement’s corroboration of a CI’s information as factors in determining the reliability of a CI’s information).

(citing Ward, d at 71).2 But the law does not require that all six factors must be satisfied to establish probable cause.

In arguing that the district court erred by 5 finding the CI reliable, rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004), which outlines several factors that courts may consider when assessing the reliability of a known CI when that CI ’s information serves as the probable-cause basis for a search warrant.

rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

These arguments are not persuasive.2 2 Appellant argues that the district court erroneously “assumed the reliability of the neighbor’s statements without”

(“Recent personal observation of incriminating conduct has traditionally been the preferred basis for an informant’s knowledge.”).

Hinton’s brief to this court relies on “six factors for determining the reliability” of a CRI

(stating that informant’s reliability can be established if police can corroborate the information and in narcotics cases, “controlled purchase” is a term of art that indicates reliability), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

In close cases, “the lack of a warrant may weigh against finding probable cause.” rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

State v. Ross , - 05 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

-41 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that a confidential informant’s “veracity can be proven by showing that details of the tip have been sufficiently corroborated so that it is clear the informant is telling the truth on this occasion” and that “the corroboration of even minor details” can bolster a CI’s reliability (quotation omitted)); (stating that one of the six factors that indicates CI reliability is when the police can corroborate the CI’s information).

State v. Ross , -42 (Minn. App. 2005), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Falk argues that the 911 rev. denied (Minn. June 16, 2004).

-04 (Minn. App. 2004) (), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

Jones further contends that “[a]t least three of the Ross factors weighed against reliability, while two others were of neutral utility given their lack of information.” Jones refers to this court’s which cited our opinion in State v. Ward

State v. Ross , -04 (Minn. App. 2004) , review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

(providing that police corroboration can establish an informant’s reliability) , review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004) .

(d 67, 71 (Minn. App. 1998)), review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

State v. Ross , review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

State v. Ross , review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

An informant may be reliable if (1) “he or she ‘has given reliable information in the past ’ and if [(2)] ‘the police can corroborate the [informant’s tip].’” Luhm, d at 621 ( ) (emphasis added).

State v. Ross , 04 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

“Whether the information provided by a confidential informant is sufficient to establish probable cause is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, particularly ‘the cred ibility and veracity of the informant.’” –04 (Minn. App. 2004) ().

review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

State v. Ross , , review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

State v. Ross , review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

“[A]n informant’s reliability can be established if the police can corroborate the information.” review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).

6 “Whether the information pr ovided by a confidential in formant is sufficient to establish probable cause is determined by ex amining the totality of the circumstances, particularly the credibility and veracity of the informant.” -04 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted).

We may conclude that a confidential informant is reliable “if he or she has given reliable information in the past and if the police can corroborate the information provided by the confidential informant.” Luhm, d at 621 ( (quotation marks omitted)).

(stating that “the informant is presumably more reliable if the informant voluntarily comes forward”).

See, review denied (Minn. June 16, 2004)