Opinion ID: 604566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Informant's Reliability and Probable Cause

Text: 15 Flockhart argues that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause because Edgington was an unreliable informant and the government failed to corroborate his information. This argument lacks merit. 16 Probable cause and the veracity of informants are determined by examining the totality of the circumstances. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1938). We have observed that a detailed eye-witness report of a crime supplies its own indicia of reliability. United States v. Elliott, 893 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir.), modified, 904 F.2d 25 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 268 (1990). 17 The affidavit states that when the informant telephoned Flockhart's co-conspirator, Lloyd, to obtain cocaine, Lloyd stated that he would call his connection. Officer Lee was present when those recorded calls were made; this information needed no other corroboration. The telephone billing records show that each time Edgington requested cocaine, Lloyd paged Flockhart within minutes or hours after speaking with Edgington. Officer Lee determined that the pager number called was registered only to Flockhart. On one occasion, Lloyd told Edgington that he was repairing his supplier's van. Edgington gave the van's license number to Officer Lee. A Department of Motor Vehicles check showed that the van in question was registered to Flockhart. Therefore, Edgington's veracity and probable cause was established by the evidence and the totality of the circumstances. 18 Because there was probable cause, we need not decide whether the officer's reliance on the search warrant was objectively reasonable. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). 19