Confidential Informant and the Stash House Tip
A confidential informant who has worked with your office for eight months tells you that a stash house at 4127 Bellflower Avenue holds 10 to 15 kilograms of cocaine and is guarded by two men, one armed with a rifle. The CI has provided information in five prior cases: two led to seizures, two were unconfirmed, and one was partly wrong. The CI is owed $5,000 and is facing state theft charges; his handler says he is usually reliable. You have two days before the CI says the load will move. A records check shows the house is 180 feet from an elementary school and the utilities are in a woman's name with no criminal record. Your supervisor wants a search warrant by tomorrow morning; the AUSA asks what corroboration you have. No controlled buy has been attempted.
1. Assess whether the CI's tip establishes probable cause and what corroboration you need before seeking a warrant.
Read the worked answer
Probable cause is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, not by labeling the CI as reliable or unreliable. This CI has a mixed record: two successes, two unconfirmed tips, and one partly wrong tip. He also has a financial motive and pending charges that could make him eager to please law enforcement. A bare tip from this CI would be weak on its own.
Before seeking a warrant, I would corroborate predictive details that are not obvious to the public. I would verify who lives at the address, conduct surveillance to confirm the described activity and the two guards, run vehicle records, check whether the CI's description of the interior or routine matches independent observations, and consider a controlled buy or a lawful trash pull if policy allows. I would also confirm the school-zone distance because it affects charging and sentencing, not probable cause. If surveillance only confirms public facts such as the address, I would tell the AUSA that corroboration is thin and ask for more time or a different investigative step.
2. What operational and ethical risks arise from the CI's debt and pending charges, and how do you manage them?
Read the worked answer
The CI's $5,000 debt and state theft charges create a strong incentive to provide information that produces a seizure or an arrest, whether or not it is true. That creates a risk of fabrication, exaggeration, and entrapment-style conduct. It also creates a disclosure obligation: the defense will be entitled to information that impeaches the CI if he testifies, and the prosecutor needs that information early.
I would not make payment contingent on a seizure or conviction. I would document all payments, agreements, and promises, and I would avoid implying that cooperation will make the state charges disappear. I would keep the CI out of the search itself and would not let him direct agents to a location without independent verification. I would also tell the AUSA about the debt, the charges, and the CI's prior reliability record so the affidavit and later disclosures are accurate.
3. The supervisor orders you to include the CI's statement in the affidavit as if fully corroborated. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
I would not sign an affidavit that misstates the level of corroboration. The affidavit can describe the CI's statement and the independent verification separately; it cannot say the statement was fully corroborated when it was not. A material misstatement or omission can undermine the warrant, taint the evidence, and violate ethical obligations.
I would explain this to the supervisor directly, citing the specific corroborated facts and the gaps. If the supervisor still insisted, I would escalate to the next supervisor or legal counsel and document the conversation. If the order remained to submit a false or misleading affidavit, I would refuse to sign it and report the matter through the proper channel. The correct fix is more investigation, not stronger wording.