Defendant was stopped for speeding in a residential area, and he could be ordered out of the vehicle. His patdown, however, was unreasonable because there was no reasonable suspicion for it either by his word or actions or bulges in his clothing or that he was known to be violent or associated with those who were. The officers did, however, have a CI that was uncorroborated. That made the inventory of the car invalid. There was also a search warrant for his residence. Excising the information from the stop from the search warrant application, the remainder doesn’t show probable cause because there was no attempt to corroborate the CI. United States v. Pauli, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31322 (D. Nev. Feb. 14, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32505 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2017):
When the Court excises all information regarding the items recovered from Defendant’s person and vehicle from the search warrant affidavit, all that remains is the information given by the informant and Detective Bourque’s corroboration of said information. Docket No. 16-1 at 2-7. The affidavit is silent, however, regarding the informant’s reliability, veracity, and basis of knowledge. Id. Additionally, the affidavit fails to inform the issuing court that the informant has prior felony convictions and prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty. Id. Further, the majority of the information that Detective Bourque was able to corroborate was information regarding easily observable actions of Defendant, including his vehicle, his residence, and his girlfriend. The other information – that regarding burglary and forgery – involved the types of crimes for which the informant also had convictions, but the issuing judge was never made aware of this information. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the remaining information in the affidavit, including the lack of information regarding the reliability and veracity of the informant, the informant’s criminal record, and the fact that the information about Defendant was the type readily known by anyone who knew him, and the lack of deference to the issuing court, the Court finds that probable cause did not exist for the issuance of the search warrant for Defendant’s residence.