CA7: Affiant’s omission of adverse info on CI that he had priors, was on probation, and paid didn’t undermine fresh, detailed, and corroborated info

The affiant left out adverse information about the CI including felony convictions, that he was on probation, and that he was paid. Still, the information from the CI was fresh, detailed, and significantly corroborated, and probable cause still existed. United States v. Bradford, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26638 (7th Cir. Sep. 19, 2018):

When a warrant application is based on information from an informant, our cases have identified five factors that are particularly relevant to the warrant’s facial validity: “the level of detail, the extent of firsthand observation, the degree of corroboration, the time between the events reported and the warrant application, and whether the informant appeared or testified before the magistrate.” Glover, 755 F.3d at 816. Although the sufficiency of a warrant application is a highly fact-specific determination, we have said that “information about the informant’s credibility or potential bias is crucial.” Id. Omitting this information deprives the magistrate of important data in the probable-cause calculus. The omission is not necessarily fatal, however. “[E]ven where some credibility information is omitted, a strong showing on the primary factors can salvage the warrant.” Id. at 818; see also United States v. Musgraves, 831 F.3d 454, 460 (7th Cir. 2016).

Agent Ulery’s warrant application left out adverse information bearing on Smith’s credibility: his three felony convictions, one of which he failed to disclose to law enforcement; his probation status; and the payments he received for his services as an informant. And Smith did not appear before the magistrate for questioning. Still, we’re satisfied that the June 9 warrant was facially valid. Smith’s information was fresh, firsthand, quite detailed, and corroborated, all of which supports the magistrate’s finding of probable cause.