The Informant's Tip
You receive an anonymous tip that a local warehouse is being used to store stolen goods. The tipster claims that the warehouse has 3 loading docks, and that stolen goods are moved every Tuesday and Friday between 2 AM and 4 AM. You have limited resources: you can conduct surveillance on only one night per week for the next two weeks, and you have one warrant application that can cover either a single night or multiple nights if probable cause is strong. The tipster has provided reliable information in the past (3 out of 4 tips led to arrests), but this is the first time they have mentioned this warehouse. You also know that the warehouse owner has a prior conviction for receiving stolen property. Your supervisor asks you to recommend a plan: which night(s) to surveil and whether to seek a warrant now or gather more evidence first.
1. Based on the information, assess the strength of probable cause for a warrant. What factors increase or decrease the reliability of the tip? Recommend whether to seek a warrant immediately or conduct surveillance first, and justify your answer using the totality-of-the-circumstances test.
Read the worked answer
Probable cause requires a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found. Under the totality-of-the-circumstances test (Illinois v. Gates), we consider the veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge of the tipster, and corroboration. Factors increasing reliability: tipster's past reliability (3/4 tips led to arrests) suggests veracity. The specific details (3 loading docks, specific days/times) provide a basis of knowledge that can be corroborated. The owner's prior conviction for receiving stolen property adds some suspicion but is not itself evidence of current crime. Factors decreasing reliability: anonymous tip (though past reliability known to you, not necessarily to magistrate unless you can attest), first time mentioning this warehouse, no independent corroboration yet. Recommendation: Conduct surveillance first to corroborate the tip's details (e.g., observe loading docks, activity at the stated times). This will strengthen probable cause. Seeking a warrant now might be premature because the tip lacks independent corroboration, and the prior conviction alone is insufficient. Surveillance on one of the specified nights (Tuesday or Friday) could confirm the pattern and provide the necessary probable cause for a warrant covering multiple nights.
2. Suppose you conduct surveillance on a Tuesday night and observe a truck arriving at 2:30 AM and unloading boxes into the warehouse. You cannot see the contents. Does this observation, combined with the tip and the owner's prior conviction, establish probable cause for a warrant? Explain.
Read the worked answer
The observation corroborates the tip's specific details: a truck arrived at the predicted time (2:30 AM within 2-4 AM window) and unloaded boxes at the warehouse. This corroboration strengthens the tipster's reliability and basis of knowledge. Combined with the tipster's past reliability (3/4) and the owner's prior conviction for receiving stolen property, there is now a fair probability that the warehouse contains stolen goods. The totality of circumstances: tip with detailed predictions, corroborated by police observation of activity at the precise time and place, plus the owner's relevant criminal history. This likely meets probable cause. However, the observation alone does not show the boxes contain stolen goods, but the corroboration of the tip's specifics raises the inference. A magistrate would likely find probable cause. It would be stronger if you could observe more, but given the constraints, this is sufficient.