denying mr miller's motion to suppress evidence seized from his person if incident to that warrant list arrest first the district court found as a matter of law that the confidential informant was not reliable and this finding cannot be overstated she cannot be trusted upon finding the c i unreliable the district court iran is lee found the additional independent confirmation and personal observations observed by the police provided enough information to establish probable claimed were connected to yo the police could not confirm if you know knew the individuals that the c i claimed were connected to him d c i never stated that she knew you know as mr miller it was the detective that made the connection between mr miller behavior of mr miller including how mr miller would arrive in bloomington april second two thousand and fourteen the district court also relied heavily on the personal observations of the police officers but it is undisputed tha officer saw a drug transaction take place between the cia and mr miller they never saw mr miller allegedly going to the bathroom and returning and with drugs mr miller was never never observed leaving the alleged location where the c the district court also placed great wit great weight on the search before and after of the c i but this incomplete search is not sufficient and detective ray's beck testified to this fact detective ray's that knew the c i had a history of lying to the police detective ray's back knew the c i had a history of hiding money in her crotch area detective ray's back knew the c i had a history of engaging in a drug tread drug transaction with the intent of stealing money and not to littering the drugs the detective raised back did not search the one place he knew the cia had money and he did not search inside her shoes or her bra to additional easy hiding places for the cia and detective rays that testified the cia very well could have had drugs at her when she met mr miller at the jimmy johns restaurant he admitted he did not adequately search the c i this court cannot rely on the search to find probable cause the government and its free places great emphasis on the phone calls placed by the c i to mr miller and mr mr miller's behavior in conjunction with the phone call once again detective race back never heard phone call placed by the cia in which she stated she was with her people she wanted the cia to call mr miller again to discuss price to offer some kind of information that would confirm this meeting with a drug deal because the first phone call was not enough and in the second phone call when the c i made while the c i may have mentioned price by stating she needed one hundred mr miller never responded he just hung up the phone there is no evidence that mr miller even heard the statement the government asks why would mr miller show up at a meeting place five minutes after the c i phoned but she showed he agreed to meet her after the protest phone call which of it taken place ten minutes prior they also met it  sandwich shop mr miller was hungry he bought a sandwich the government asks why would the meeting between mr miller and the cia last only a few minutes and left to west for the transaction the c i described once again they met at a sandwich shop mr miller purchased a sandwich that is the transaction that took place that day the government asks why would mr miller meet the cia in person unless he wanted to exchange something with her this meeting took place at a restaurant  order food he purchased a sandwich he met the cia in person at jimmy johnson because he was hungry never meant the place is great it emphasis on the police department's conclusions that a drug transaction occurred at jimmy johns on march fifth the government states that in order to find no probable cause the pre buy search of the cia would have to be discounted but detective ray speck testified that the c i hadra could have had drugs hidden on her person that day he has already discounted that pre buy search just because the cia returned with drugs and money to snout mean the alleged drug transaction took place because relying on the words of the c i is relying on the words of  that the district court found to be unreliable the government argued in its brief that the c i would have to put various denominations of money in a place she hoped the police would not search but to see i did not have to have various denominations  places she hoped the place in that search she only needed a ten dollar bill furthermore she was instructed to buy a gram of cocaine and she returned with a half gram government believes it is highly unlikely that the cia would have the forethought or the motivation to lie about a drug deal but she had every reason to lie and she has done this in the past the cia the c i had everything to gain and nothing to lose she is a known liar a drug user and she need to provide so it is easy to believe that in your own drug user would have drugs and her at work and would be able to stage this kind of setup none of the cases that the government relies upon supports its argument the police had enough information to arrest mr miller without a warrant united states versus financial the da actually saw the drug transaction take place in this case not one officer saw the drug transaction in united states versus gilbert arresting officer after he's an officer verify each piece of information provided by the criminal informant in this case detective ray's back only verify that mr miller arrived on a train the evening of march fourth tw informants in this case detective rays that had no prior experience with the cia with the exception of her attempting to steal money during another controlled by united states versus a libya the c i had purchased drugs from the defendant on prior occasions on march fifth was a drug transaction excuse is not about what the police didn't do it's about what they did do and whether those facts and observations that they made stablished probable cause to believe that mr miller possessed with the intent to distribute an amount of cocaine contrary to the the mr miller's proof of the police did nothing to corroborate the word of the confidential source  and the complete discount that mr miller suggests that the court found that the confidential source was not reliable all that is that is not the case with the court indicated specifically that it would he would be trouble for the court to be troubled if europe had relied solely upon the representations of this confidential source because of her essentially sordid past history of which we can see if she had definite problems with her credibility but the police made their own personal observations of corroboration that established credibility to the accusations that she made and the claims that she made about being able to buy  recognizing the on miller rather that is from a two thousand and nine drug case she he shows this picture to the confidential source she says yes that's the yellow that i'm talking about he's the one that indicates they want some help selling his  cocaine in the bloomington area ask a few very verify the identification of mr miller the detective listens in on the phone calls and he hears things that are consistent in his experience in training that are consistent with a drug transaction and consistent with representations that the sources such as made i'm with my people now is what the confidential source tells mr miller in the phone conversations mr miller the detectives see him arrive within five minutes of the c s telling him on the phone that she needed one hundred and there's no response by there's no answer rather but that not answering is actually a response to if if he didn't know what she was talking about presumably he would have said what do you mean he doesn't read it and the detectives opinion that's because we're talking about a drug transaction one hundred means one hundred dollars worth of whatever the drugs are that you're providing to me at this transaction there's no difference correct i think what they were expecting was one gram it turned out to be a half ram into bags and even the record is somewhat confusing because it talks about two point two grams which according to the representation believe the detective was making would be a couple hundred dollars worth of crack cocaine but i think what the detective was saying is the common price for drugs in that area was expecting one hundred dollars worth and the question was raised there in a hearing you know whether that was a lower amount than expected in the c s said yes i addressed that with mr him mr miller at the jimmy johns said the six like it's short and he said it well it's good stuff so there was some explanation as to why there was a less than they had expected but the officers see this they listen to the phone calls they verify the identity there is verb serving with surveillance the transaction  in conjunction with this being a very brief meeting where she searched before hand she's given the money hundred dollars and twenty dollars bills she comes back with out that money and having a half gram of crack the location all arranged by a detective race back which takes it out of the ballpark of realistic possibility that this is something that the confidential source had made arrangements to somehow set up mr miller so there is sufficient independent corroboration yes we prefer warrants they're not require see that the light is on closing if there are no questions we stand on the arguments  honor we have to look at the absurd behaviors and actions of mr miller now the c i because we know she has lied in the past and we know she is not trustworthy she's down here more information needed to be gathered in order to get this to be a trustworthy tent and went on a hunch detective razorback went to the amtrak station to arrest mr miller on april second twenty fourteen he knew five things you know that fifth and mr miller left with the sandwich now one of these facts either alone or together is indicative that a drug deal took place on march fifth twenty fourteen this court find that more is needed the detective