CIs and Search Warrants

Module One: Course Introduction 

1. Instructor introduction.

2. Explain the course objective.

3. Encourage attendees to ask questions and share feedback with  other attendees.

4. Explain that certificates will be emailed after the class.  5) Go over the three disclaimers:

• Laws and agency standard operating procedures may be  more restrictive. Blue to Gold is teaching the federal  standard unless otherwise stated. Therefore, students must  know their state and local requirements in addition to the  federal standard.
• If students have any doubts about their actions, ask a  supervisor or legal advisor.
• The course is not legal advice, but legal education.  Therefore, nothing we teach should be interpreted as legal  advice. Check with your agency’s legal advisor for legal  advice.

Module Two: Confidential Informant

1. Legal Rule: Courts know that informants are vital for  investigations, but they must be managed properly.

2. The citizen information is not involved in criminal activity. They are regular citizens looking to help. Citizen informants are  usually victims or witnesses. ID them as V1 of W1. They are  presumed reliable.

3. Legal Rule: An informant’s reliability must be explained, not  simply based on conclusions.

4. Case Sample: “Affiants have received reliable information from  a credible person and do believe that heroin, marijuana,  barbiturates, and other narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia are  being kept at the above-described premises for the purpose of  sale and use contrary to the provisions of the law.” (Aguilar v.  Texas) Held: There were mere conclusions the C.I. was reliable.

5. Case Sample: An affidavit stated that the C.I. “personally  observed [the defendant] having personal possession and  control over a quantity of marijuana being held expressly for the  purpose of unlawful distribution.” (U.S. v. Weaver) Held: The  distribution statement was conclusory.

6. Case Sample: I received information from an informant who  has proven reliable in several investigations (with the  information he supplied), that ‘Otto’ above description, is  engaged in the illegal sales of cocaine and marijuana. My  informant stated that Otto usually keeps the drugs in his gas  station at above location. Synopsis: I received information  from an informant who has proven reliable in several  investigations (with the information he supplied), that ‘Otto’  above description, is engaged in the illegal sales of cocaine and  marijuana. My informant stated that Otto usually keeps the  drugs in his gas station at above location. He (informant) also  stated that he witnessed ‘Otto’ dealing drugs from his gas  station. I, along with Det. Ralph Scianni, conducted a  surveillance of subject and his station on Thurs., 6/2/83,  between the hours of 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM, and observed Otto  meeting with several persons, after leaving his station and  making what we believed to be drug transactions. During the  surveillance, we observed one person making a transaction with  Otto and checked on his vehicle and called the narcotics squad  to inquire on his relationship with drugs. They told us that said  person has been arrested for cocaine and other violations and  they felt that Otto and the other person are involved in drug  activity. From the information received from our informant and  from our observations, we do feel that a search of Otto’s gas station should be conducted for illegal contraband. We checked  on ownership of the station and it belongs to Otto who we have  presently in headquarters on this investigation. Otto was  advised of his rights and refused a search of his station but  appeared to be very nervous. (State v. Novembrino)

7. Pro Tips: When writing affidavits, the goal should be to  convince a squeaky-clean preacher why you have probable  cause.

Module Three: How to Articulate an Informants Probable  Cause

1.

2.

3. Case Sample: C.I. gave officer accurate information 15-16 times  before. (McCray v. Illinois) Held: There was “no doubt” as the  informant’s reliability.

4. What would you do? How do you keep track of your  informant’s reliability?

5. Case Sample: The officer’s “testimony was inconsistent and  uncertain; it demonstrated a woeful lack of proof, not only as to  the alleged informer’s reliability but even as to his existence.”  Synopsis: Defendant was convicted in Circuit Court, Cook  County, Marvin E. Aspen, J., of possession of heroin and she  appealed. The Appellate Court, Leighton, J., held that where  defendant made a prima facie case that officer lacked probable  cause to make the arrest, the burden of going forward shifted  to the state; that testimony by arresting officer that he did not  have an arrest warrant and had not seen defendant violate any  law established a prima facie case that there was no probable  cause; and that testimony by arresting officer concerning the  reliability of informer who told him that defendant would be in  possession of heroin was so inconsistent and uncertain as to  demonstrate a lack of proof as to the alleged informer’s  reliability and even his existence and did not establish probable  cause for the arrest. Reversed and remanded with directions.  (People v. Williams) Held: Not good.

6. Case Sample: The C.I. told the officer when and where a drug  transaction would take place. The officer observed the  transaction but made no arrest. Synopsis: Certain other  verification of the informant’s prior information may likewise be  sufficient for essentially the same reasons. For example,  in Barber v. State the officer testified that on a prior occasion the  informant had told him that two named persons would meet at  a specified time and place and engage in a narcotics transaction,  and that he set up a surveillance and had observed the  predicted narcotics transaction but did not make an arrest. The  court relied heavily upon that verified transaction, and to a  lesser degree upon the fact that other more general information  offered on other occasions had in all instances proved to be  true, in concluding that such a track record was “at least as  reliable as a track record which shows that two or three arrests  have been made as a result of information furnished by the  informant.” In a case of this kind, however, it is critical that the  incriminating part of the prior tale of the informant be definitely  verified. Thus, if an informant were to tell an officer that a party  was to occur at a certain time and place and that drugs would  be used at the party, but the officer’s later surveillance merely established that a party was occurring as predicted, this would  not suffice to establish the informant’s credibility. (Barber v.  State). Held: Seeing the drug transaction helped prove C.I.’s  reliability.

7. Case Sample: What if the C.I. told the officer there would be  drugs at a party and the officer saw the party but no drugs?  Synopsis: Certain other verification of the informant’s prior  information may likewise be sufficient for essentially the same  reasons. For example, in Barber v. State77 the officer testified  that on a prior occasion the informant had told him that two  named persons would meet at a specified time and place and  engage in a narcotics transaction, and that he set up a  surveillance and had observed the predicted narcotics  transaction but did not make an arrest. The court relied heavily  upon that verified transaction, and to a lesser degree upon the  fact that other more general information offered on other  occasions had in all instances proved to be true, in concluding  that such a track record was “at least as reliable as a track record  which shows that two or three arrests have been made as a  result of information furnished by the informant.”78 In a case of  this kind, however, it is critical that the incriminating part of the  prior tale of the informant be definitely verified. Thus, if an  informant were to tell an officer that a party was to occur at a  certain time and place and that drugs would be used at the  party, but the officer’s later surveillance merely established that  a party was occurring as predicted, this would not suffice to  establish the informant’s credibility. (People v. Williams 1973).  Held: This would contribute practically nothing to reliability.

8. Pro Tip: You can use reliable tips given to any officer or agency.  Two reliable tips are the minimum for a CI to become a CRI

9. *With number two, it’s essentially the same job as the officer.

10. Pro Tip: The key to corroboration is to explain why the  observed conduct proves the informant has inside  information.

11. Case Sample: A CRI told an officer that the suspect would  return from Chicago on Mon or Tues, provided a physical  description, described what he was wearing, that he would be  holding a tan zipper bag, and habitually walked fast. All of this  was corroborated. Synopsis: The fact that the informer was  able to predict, two days in advance, the exact clothing Draper  would be wearing dispelled the possibility that his tip was just  based on rumor or “an offhand remark heard at a neighborhood  bar.” … Probably Draper had planned in advance to wear these  specific clothes so that an accomplice could identify him. A clear  inference could therefore be drawn that the informant was  either involved in the criminal scheme himself or that he  otherwise had access to reliable, inside information. Held: The  CRI + the corroboration equaled probable cause.

Module Four: Takeaways

1. Major takeaways