Cited by

Probable cause requires a “ ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ ” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).

(stating that even if each component, when viewed in isolation, is insubstantial to establish probable cause, “the components viewed together may reveal .

The “preferred” basis of knowledge in CI tips includes “[r] ecent personal observation of incriminating conduct.”

To be constitutional, a search must be supported by probable cause, which means a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Probable cause is based on a “totality of the circumstances test.” (quotation omitted).

at 892; (concluding that warrant was supported by probable cause where informant observed contraband two days before issuance of warrant); 703 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that warrant was supported by probable cause where informant reported observing narcotics at resi

A district court’s probable-cause determination “should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.” (quotation omitted).

See, (drugs found in the defendant’s home); (defendant’s papers and checkbook found near the drugs); State.

In doing so, appellate courts consider the “totality of the circumstances.”

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

n.1 (Minn. 1985) (emphasis added) (stating that “[i]nformation regarding the past accuracy rate of the informant and 7 the results of prior searches based on the informant’s tips, such as whether they led to arrests or convictions, should be provided to the magis

Probable cause requires a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).

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

Under this test, “courts must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.”

Further, unlike cases where law enforcement found controlled substances in a bedroom with a defendant’s personal items, or defendant’s identifying information on the controlled substance, the only evidence tying the large bong to appellant’s personal possessions is that both items were found in a common room.

271 (Minn. 1985) (affirming conviction); –79 (Minn. 1977) (same).

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

The informant’s prior collaboration enhances the veracity of the tip because it puts the informant in “a position to be held accountable.” - 07 (Minn. 1972).

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

-69 (Minn. 1985) (affirming marijuana-possession conviction based on testimony of chemist who had identified marijuana by performing .

The corroboration of key details is preferable but even the corroboration of minor details will “lend credence to the informant’s tip.” d 265, 269 (Minn. 1985).

(corroboration); McCloskey, d at 704 (voluntariness and statements against interest); (informant history).

“[T]he resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.” (quotations omitted).

Stated another way, an officer has probable cause to search when there is a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

Probable cause exists when there is “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

“In reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit under the totality of the circumstances test, courts must be careful not to review each component of t he affidavit in isolation.” State v. Wiley

In doing so, appellate courts consider the “totality of the circumstances.”

“In reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit under the totality of the circumstances test, courts must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.”

“In reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit under the totalit y of the circumstances test, courts must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” State v. Wiley

(quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S. Ct. at 2332).

Id.; see also State v. Wiley , (holding that district court findings “which are the product of firsthand observation of the demeanor of the parties and witnesses possess a certain integrity not contained in the written record alone”), aff’d

d 265, 269 (Minn. 1985) (interpreting language in a search warrant affidavit that an informant “has been used over several years successfully” “in a practical, commonsense manner” to conclude “that the informant had provided accurate information to the police in the past”).