Informants and Search Warrants

¶ … law enforcement for a number of reasons. Technically, "anyone who discloses investigative information can be considered an informant" (Osterburg & Ward, 20130, p 183). There are open or closed informants that have different motivations; anything from wanting to protect the community to trying to achieve immunity or a deal for their own participation within criminal activity. They can help prevent crimes from occurring, start the process of an investigation by prompting investigation and the acquisition of a search warrant, as well as help solidify a conviction.

Informants can provide information already in their possession or help acquire new information through seeking it out for law enforcement. In cases were informants are criminals themselves, there are added issues that can complicate an informant's role in an investigation or in obtaining a search warrant. Often times, judges and juries are less likely to whole heartedly believe a criminal testifying against another in order to save him or herself from any potential persecution in a court of law.

Thus, there are certain precautions and steps law enforcement should take when working with informants to acquire information used in investigations or the acquisition of search warrants. Based on precedent, the status of informants must be understood and used correctly in order to make them useful in obtaining search warrants and convictions.

According to the 1981 Attorney General Guidelines for using informants, it is true that "the courts have recognized that the government's use of informants and confidential sources is lawful and often essential to the effectiveness of properly authorized law enforcement investigations," (Osterburg & Ward, 20130, p 193). However, "use of informants and confidential sources to assist in the investigation of criminal activity may involve an element of deception, intrusion into the privacy of individuals, or cooperation with persons whose reliability and motivation can be open to question" (Osterburg & Ward, 20130, p 193).

Thus, there needs to be special care in choosing and working with informants so that their testimony can stand in court against such open questions regarding their motivations. The admissibility of informant information in a court of law does differ and thus there are different considerations when determining how much weight should actually be given to an informant's information provided.

Typically, informants that are considered insiders, or close to the suspect and are involved in the criminal activity, tend to have more weight than other types of informants, as seen in the case of Maine v. Moulton (Osterburg & Ward, 20130, p 185). Their information can also be strengthened dramatically when it is corroborated with other physical or tangible evidence, such as recorded conversations from a wire tap.

This is when an informant's information holds the most weight and thus can be most useful when obtaining a search warrant or a suspect conviction in a court of law. Ultimately, the tangible evidence serves to help strengthen the informant's claims. However, when attempting to obtain a search warrant, there is often not a lot of tangible evidence because the warrant is first needed to obtain that such evidence. In this case, informant's information is often not corroborated with stronger evidence.

The research shows that using an informant's information for determining probable cause is one of the more.