Cited by

(holding that corroboration of “easily obtained” facts of an informant’s tip does not, in itself, support a probable cause finding).

But corroboration is not sufficient to lend reliability to an informant’s tip if the only facts corroborated by police are “easily obtained.”

in which this court concluded that a search warrant was not supported by probable cause.

d 107 (Minn. App. 1991).

See, d 107, 107 (Minn. App. 1991).

(stating that “informant’s credibility can be established by sufficient police corroboration of the informant’s information”).

]’s identity and [defendant]’s address”); (concluding that corroboration of confidential informant’s “description of [defendant]’s clothing, physical appearance, vehicle, and present location” did not establish “any link between [defendant] and illegal activity” reported by informant), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000); (concluding that “corroboration of [anonymous informant’s information regarding defendant’s] address and car ownership, without more, is not sufficient to support a finding of

In assessing the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit, this court “must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.”

d 107, 107 (Minn. App. 1991) (syllabus by the court) (“A police officer’s corroboration of easily obtained facts of an informant’s tip, without more, is not a sufficient basis for probable cause.”).

Appellant argues that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, claiming that the search warrant application relied on information provided by a

Appellant argues that the officer’s where this court found a lack of probable cause for police to search a residence for drugs.

Doubtful or marginal cases should be “ ‘largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.’ ” (quoting Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 734 , 104 S.Ct.