1The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1876

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Jose Morales, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2000

Filed: February 1, 2001 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN,

Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Chief Judge.

Jose Morales pled guilty in district court1 to possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Morales

conditioned his plea on the opportunity to appeal the court’s denial of his motion to

suppress two pounds of methamphetamine seized from his vehicle. Because we agree
-2-

with the district court that the search of Morales’s vehicle was supported by probable

cause, we affirm.

We review the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error. United States v.

Delaney, 52 F.3d 182, 186 (8th Cir. 1995). We will affirm the district court’s decision

unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence or is based on an erroneous

interpretation of applicable law, or, in light of the entire record, we are left with a firm

conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. 

Morales first argues that officers lacked probable cause to stop and search his

vehicle because they relied on inherently unreliable information supplied by a

confidential informant. The informant indicated that two individuals, eventually

identified as Morales and his associate Luiz Zarco-Perez, were involved in the

methamphetamine trade. “The core question in assessing probable cause based upon

information supplied by an informant is whether the information is reliable.” United

States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993). “Information may be sufficiently

reliable to support a probable cause finding if the person providing the information has

a track record of supplying reliable information, or if it is corroborated by independent

evidence.” Id. 

The informant in this case had no record of cooperation with law enforcement.

The district court determined, however, that the informant’s story was sufficiently

corroborated by independent evidence and was therefore reliable. We agree. After the

informant agreed to cooperate with authorities, law enforcement agents tape-recorded

phone conversations between the informant and Zarco-Perez. Agents learned that

Zarco-Perez had agreed to provide the informant with two pounds of

methamphetamine, and they later observed a meeting involving the informant, ZarcoPerez, and Morales. After the meeting, agents tape-recorded yet another telephone

conversation confirming the transaction. Police thereafter stopped Morales’s vehicle
2Both Morales and Zarco-Perez were in the car at the time. 

-3-

and discovered two pounds of methamphetamine.2 In our view, the repeated phone

calls, the meeting between the suspects, and the totality of the circumstances

corroborate the informant’s story and together constitute probable cause. Cf. id.

(probable cause to support a search warrant should be determined by a “totality-of-thecircumstances” test). 

Morales also contends that the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked probable

cause because of a lack of communication between the arresting officer and those

investigating the case. An officer must possess probable cause “at the moment the

arrest was made.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91. We have held, however, that

probable cause may be “based on the collective knowledge of all law enforcement

officers involved in an investigation and need not be based solely on the information

within the knowledge of the officer on the scene if there is some degree of

communication.” United States v. Horne, 4 F.3d 579, 585 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Our review of the record indicates sufficient communication between the

arresting officer and the others involved in the investigation. The arresting officer was

intimately involved with the investigation leading to Morales’s arrest. Not only was

he aware of the conversations between Morales, the informant, and Zarco-Perez, the

arresting officer also participated in the surveillance of the meeting among the three.

Accordingly, we conclude that probable cause existed for the arrest. 

The judgment is affirmed. 
-4-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.