[brief] In the Funderburg decision, the court ruled in the following versions pertinent to [...]:  The court is unable to credit by a preponderance of the evidence any of these three versions of events.  First and foremost, each version is at odds with the two other versions.  As noted above, the witness’s demeanor does not help the court resolve the inconsistencies.  Moreover, at the hearing, the two detectives’ recollections differed.  For example, [...] still recalled a telephone call “while on patrol. ”  However, Det. [...] abandoned that claim.  Also Det. [...] claimed that he explained to [...] that he had received information from [...] that was also imparted to [...], and that he shared with him the details of the investigation.  By contrast, [...] testified that Det. [...] never mentioned [...] or [...].  As for the second version, the alleged conversation between the informant and [...] is, ultimately, uncorroborated by [...] himself.  One would think that [...] had such a conversation he would have recalled it, particularly inasmuch as it involved a substantial amount of cocaine that officers ultimately seized.  It was also unclear why [...] apparently, for days, did nothing to follow up on this information.  Nor is the court persuaded by the third version of events.  The court finds it difficult to conclude that a confidential informant would have been willing to meet a TAC unit officer in the public lobby of the police headquarters, and run the risk of being seen as cooperating with an officer.  Also, Det. [...] does not explain why he failed to mention, in his affidavit of probable cause, or in his IA interview, that he surveilled [...] two consecutive nights before the night of the actual arrest.  He provided details at the 2010 hearing that were missing from his almost-contemporaneous affidavit of probable cause and his IA interview.  It also is implausible that the detective was able to surveil the location unnoticed three nights in a row, for hours at a time, from the bushes in front of the house.  As reflected in the surveillance spot is close to public sidewalk and the entrance to number [...].  It is also difficult to accept that the witness mentioned nothing of his investigation to his partner until minutes before arriving at 12 Atterbuty Avenue.  Det. Astbuty’s testimony at the hearing is also inconsistent with this IA testimony.  According to his hearing testimony, the confidential information was provided to him three days before the arrest of [...] – which would mean Thursday, October 26, 2006.  He then spoke to the witness by phone the next two nights and met him at headquarters on Sunday, October 29, 2006.  He testified that he surveilled the house Friday and Saturday as well as the date of defendant’s arrest.  However, the date of the informant’s arrest as set forth in the IA interviews, but which the court has redacted, is inconsistent with this testimony at the hearing.  In the final analysis, the court cannot determine with sufficient confidence why the two detective appeared at [...] on October 29, 2006.  Moreover, the inconsistencies create doubt about the reliability of their version of what happened next.  The court rejects the State’s argument, presented orally and in its post-hearing brief, that witnesses’ credibility should not be affected by these inconsistencies because they do not directly relate to the ultimate issues. ” (internal citations omitted).