Failing to include the CI’s criminal history didn’t mislead the magistrate issuing the warrant, and there was probable cause in any event, even without including it. Moreover, the issuing magistrate would have to fairly conclude the CI had criminal involvement. United States v. Heyer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129134 (D. Minn. July 6, 2017):
First, the Court notes that although Jones’ criminal history was not included or acknowledged in the affidavit in support of the state court search warrant, it is unlikely that the state district court judge did not realize that Jones had some involvement or experience with the criminal justice system. The paragraph of the affidavit which specifically mentions Jones states that Jones gave the relevant information during a “recorded mirandized [sic] statement.” (Mem. in Supp., [Docket No. 25], 9). From this, the issuing state district court judge could easily infer that Jones was not an individual unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. As Judge Donovan W. Frank stated in United States v. Hadi al Jebory, No. 7-cr-235(1) (DWF/JSM), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99597, 2008 WL 485145, *18 (D. Minn. Feb. 15, 2008):
Judicial officers generally are not “misled by the alleged omission of facts [that the confidential informant had a criminal record and was cooperating under a plea agreement] . . . because informants frequently have criminal records and often supply information to the government pursuant to plea arrangements. In fact, reviewing judges are well aware that “informants are often motivated ‘in the hopes of obtaining leniency with respect to their own situation [but] that does not necessarily mean they are unreliable.’”
(Citations omitted). Id.