D.Utah: Example of how the CI’s story was supported in detail

Defendant challenges the CI’s statements as insufficient to show probable cause, but it fails. This is an example of how this court found the CI’s detail sufficient. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30335 (D. Utah Feb. 19, 2025)*:

As stated, to determine if these statements provided a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, the Court must consider the informant’s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge. “Veracity concerns whether there is reason to believe that the informant is telling the truth, including whether he faces criminal charges or whether his statement is against his own penal interest.” However, if “there is sufficient independent corroboration of an informant’s information, there is no need to establish the veracity of the informant.” In assessing reliability, courts consider “whether the informant has provided accurate information in the past.” “As for basis of knowledge, a firsthand observation is entitled to greater weight than secondhand information.” If, as here, “the informant’s basis of knowledge is not described on the face of the affidavit, [courts] look … for the kind of highly specific or personal details from which one could reasonably infer that the informant had firsthand knowledge about the claimed criminal activity.”

The government argues that in support of these elements, the affidavit explains that the informant “had disclosed to officers [their] ‘name and other personal information,’ as well as ‘made statements to Narcotics Detectives against [their] own interest.'” Further, they argue that the affidavit describes the details the informant provided regarding Defendant’s alleged drug run to Arizona, including where he went, the type of drugs he was picking up, who he delivered a portion of the drugs to, and the license plate details of Defendant’s truck. The government argues that “this level of detail” indicates that the informant’s information was provided based on their “personal observation, or at the very least did not come to [them] as a casual rumor.” Finally, the government argues that some details provided by the informant were corroborated by the affiant, namely that the controlled purchase produced the kind of drugs the informant had disclosed (fentanyl), and surveillance of the residence revealed short-term traffic, which is consistent with narcotics distribution. The government concludes that these “indicators of veracity and reliability for the informant in this case, combined with the independent corroboration of the informant’s information, provided a substantial basis for the magistrate’s determination.” (footnotes omitted)