Cited by

Probable cause may arise from noncriminal behavior because “probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity, the significant fact being not whether particular conduct is ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty,’ but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

“[V]eracity 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.” State v. Holiday , (quotation omitted).

But “even noncriminal behavior can be given weight in the totality-of-the-circumstances test.”

Also, “there is no mandate that every fact in the [informant’s report] be corroborated, that a certain number of facts be corroborated, or that certain types of facts must be corroborated.” (emphasis omitted).

-39, 841-42 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that a controlled buy was probative of an informant’s veracity where a different CRI attempted a controlled buy from the subject of the warrant application and corroborated details from the initial tip).

“Generally, a search is lawful only if it is executed pursuant to a valid search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate after a finding of probable cause.”

by showing that details of the tip have been sufficiently corroborated so that it is clea r the informant is telling the truth on this occasion.” State v. Holiday , (quotation omitted ).

See, (describing a “controlled buy” between a confidential reliable informant and the defendant-respondent).

-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 reliabilit

ota Supreme Court has held that an informant is reliable if the “details of the tip have been sufficiently corroborated so that it is clear the informant is telling the truth on this occasion.” see also McCloskey, d at 704 (concluding that even “minimal corroboration” is relevant to the probable-cause analysis); (affirming the district court’s probable-cause determination in part because the police were able to corroborate the informant’s tip); Ross, d at 304 (including providing information tha

To support reliability by corroboration, “there is no mandate that every fact in the [informant’s report] be corroborated, that a certain number of facts be corroborated, or that certain types of facts must be corroborated.”

To establish reliability by corroboration, “there is no mandate that every fact in the [informant’s report] be corroborated, that a certain number of facts be corroborated, or that certain types of facts must be corroborated.”

(considering recent arres t on a similar charge as contributing to reasonable suspicion); accord State v. Holiday , (stating that a person’ s criminal record may contribute to probable cause).

“When determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause, we do not engage in a de novo review.” (quotation omitted).

“Even corroboration of minor details lends credence to an informant’s tip.”

Probable cause exists where an affidavit filed with the court demonstrates that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Yarbrough, d at 622 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)); see also State v. Holiday

Probable cause exists where an affidavit filed with the court demonstrates that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Yarbrough, d at 622 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983))

“The United States and Minnesota Constitutions provide that no warrant shall issue without a showing of probable cause.” see also U.S. Const. amend.

See State v. Holiday , (addressing district court’s failure to “afford great deference to the issuing magistrate” (quotation omitted)); (“Similar to reviewing whether a warrant was supported by probable cause, [a] district court should generally give great

(“Even corroboration of minor details lends credence to an informant’s tip and is relevant to the probable-cause determination.”).

“Even corroboration of minor details lends credence to an informant’s tip and is relevant to the probable-cause determination.”

‘by showing that details of the tip have been sufficiently corroborated so that it is clear th e informant is telling the truth on this occasion.’” ( (Mi nn.

State v. Holiday , , 839 (Minn. App. 2008).

after a finding of probable cause.” State v. Holiday

or ‘by showing that details of the tip have been sufficiently corroborated so t hat it is clear the informant is telling the truth on this occasion.’” State v. Holiday , (-15 (Minn. 1978)).

d 833, 838 (Minn. App. 2008).