CA2: CIs don’t need “a track record of reliability” when shown otherwise reliable

The CI was described in the affidavit for the warrant as “reliable,” but didn’t elaborate. “Circuit precedent does not require informants to have a track record of reliability. … Here, where the informant testified under oath before the issuing judge as a witness to criminal activity, it is especially difficult to credit an argument that the statement regarding reliability of the informant was reckless or misleading. … There is no indication that the statement that the informant was reliable misled the issuing magistrate.” United States v. Nelson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32137 (2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2020).

Defendant didn’t show that the district court erred in finding that there was consent to the search. Part of his argument is waived for appeal by lack of specificity in the briefs and lack of a reply brief when the government argued waiver as appellee. United States v. Quezada-Lara, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32219 (10th Cir. Oct. 13, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.