Opinion ID: 1992093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Credibility of Information in Affidavit

Text: The reliability of an informant may be established by showing that (1) the informant has given reliable information to police officers in the past, (2) the informant is a citizen informant, (3) the informant has made a statement that is against his or her penal interest, and (4) a police officer's independent investigation establishes the informant's reliability or the reliability of the information the informant has given. State v. Utterback, 240 Neb. 981, 485 N.W.2d 760 (1992). In determining the relative reliability of an informant's information to demonstrate probable cause to issue a search warrant, we have distinguished between the ordinary confidential informant and the citizen informant. See State v. Blakely, 227 Neb. 816, 420 N.W.2d 300 (1988). We described this distinction as follows: `When considering the sufficiency of probable cause based on information supplied by an informant, it is important to distinguish the police tipster, who acts for money, leniency, or some other selfish purpose, from the citizen informer, whose only motive is to help law officers in the suppression of crime. .... `In the latter the rule of prior reliability is considerably relaxed for several reasons. In the first place the citizen informer has rarely had any earlier experience in reporting suspected criminal activity. Furthermore, unlike the professional informant, he is without motive to exaggerate, falsify or distort the facts to serve his own ends.' Id. at 822, 420 N.W.2d at 304. Accord State v. Haynie, 239 Neb. 478, 476 N.W.2d 905 (1991). [A]n untested citizen informant who has personally observed the commission of a crime is presumptively reliable. State v. Payne, 201 Neb. 665, 670, 271 N.W.2d 350, 352 (1978). An anonymous tipster's `explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, entitles [the] tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case.' State v. Vermuele, 241 Neb. 923, 931-32, 492 N.W.2d 24, 31 (1992) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). The Detweilers argue that the Crimestoppers caller was not a citizen informant because the affidavit did not set forth the circumstances by which the caller's status as a citizen informant may be inferred. The Detweilers claim the Crimestoppers caller was not acting openly in aid of law enforcement and that the caller does not meet the definition of a citizen informant. We disagree. In State v. Duff, 226 Neb. 567, 571, 412 N.W.2d 843, 846 (1987), we referred to a definition given by other courts of a citizen informant as `a citizen who purports to ... have been the witness of a crime who is motivated by good citizenship and acts openly in aid of law enforcement....' We have not previously adopted a requirement that a citizen informant cannot remain anonymous, and we decline to do so. Reliability may appear by the very nature of the circumstances under which the incriminating information became known. Id. The affidavit set forth a significant basis for finding that the Crimestoppers caller was a citizen informant. The caller made an anonymous report to Crimestoppers, claiming to have taken photographs of a crime in progress. The caller sent the photographs to the police and then verified their contents. The photographs and the caller's description of them provide a detailed description of the crime that the caller alleged to have personally witnessed. Moreover, there is no evidence that the caller had any selfish motivation for working with the police, such as promises of leniency or financial benefit. There is no indication that the caller had any incentive to exaggerate the information made available to Dorcey in pursuit of personal ends. Dorcey averred in his affidavit that the photographs matched the description provided by the caller. In addition, Dorcey corroborated the caller's claim that the Detweiler home had a second story by independent investigation and verified that the windows in a room on the north side of the house, which the Crimestoppers caller identified as the growing room, were covered.