If a person was a confidential informant and had 2 sworn statements?

Question

If a C.I. in a drug case had given info that was used for obtaining a no knock search warrant, and affiant states reason for no knock was based solely on CI's sworn statement, but the C.I. afterwards gives sworn statement in the form of a general affidavit in front of a Notory public and signed, that he/she did not give the said info to law enforcement and denies all info in police affidavit to be true. Does this make illegal search? Totality an issue even though? C.I. unreliable and frivulous info?

There is also the issue of C.I. being involved in a plot to obtain the property of the accussed by means of Planting evidence on property prior to calling police with info, and the plot being exposed by sworn testimony of a brother and a sister of the C.I. They both stated that the C.I. had plans to do this to obtain property for grandson. Now is the evidence still submissible?

Answer 1

As a narcotics officer, I see a comment or two that doesn't make sense.

First, a "no knock" warrant is not obtained based upon the statement from a confidential informant (CI) but upon circumstances that exist that prevents a safe entry based upon weapons located in the place to be searched, number of suspects, and the ability to destroy evidence in a quick manner.

Second, a notary public does not provide legitimacy to a "sworn statement" but only verifies that the signature upon the document is from that person making presentation of the document.

The most interesting part of your question is the issue over the legality of the warrant which is where the issue will certainly be argued in court.

The court will have to determine the facts known to the police at the time the information was given to police who in turn submitted their request for a warrant.

Did the police obtain the warrant based upon information they believed to be true giving them "probable cause" that illegal activities and evidence of a crime existed at the place to be searched...if yes...then I believe the warrant issue could be argued in favor of the prosecution.

Based upon the information used to obtain the warrant, when the warrant was executed, were illegal drugs found....if yes...then the information was basically correct.

The last issue that comes to my thoughts are the credibility and reliability of the CI. If the CI was not credible or reliable, nor was any of the information provided by the CI verified by the police, then it could be argued that the CI was NOT credible nor reliable therefore the warrant may not be valid.

As a narcotics officer, I am responsible for providing accurate information that is verifiable before seeking the judges signature on my request for a search warrant. My failure to do so could very easily cause me the results of the case.

I must concur with some of the other respondants in this blog that there appears to be something missing in this issue. To say the least, the CI who provided TWO seperate "sworn" statements is potentially looking at some serious repercusions for what appears to be providing false information to law enforcement.

Best wishes!

Answer 2

Sounds like somebody got caught with drugs and is desperately seeking a way out now. If there was nothing illegal to be found, there would be no appealing the search warrant.
If the C.I. made sworn statements before the warrant and is now saying he or she lied before, they are guilty of perjury. Why would the C.I. be influenced into doing this?
Something about this case is wrong based on your info. it just remains to be proven who is lying.
If the info. was unreliable and frivolous why were drugs found?

Answer 3

Not only does it not make the search illegal, the person who basically changed their story was/is lieing in one statement or the other, & would probably be charged w swearing out a false statement or a similar charge

Answer 4

No, this does NOT make the search illegal. If the Officers who executed the search warrant believed in good faith that the warrant was good, what they found can not be supressed.

Answer 5

The use of confidential informants by the police is understandable, but dangerous for democratic rights. In the former German Democratic Republic and before in Nazi Germany people were forced to spy their relatives or their neighbours, and in the 1950s, in the USA citizens spied against other citizens, who had contacts to persons who once had visited Russia or were for other reasons suspect to be communists.

Answer 6

What did you get busted for?