Tenth Circuit Clarifies “Mixed-Accuracy” Informant Reliability for Probable Cause

Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Harris, No. 24-8050 (10th Cir. July 2, 2025)

Introduction

United States v. Harris confronted the perennial Fourth Amendment question: when can law-enforcement officers rely on a confidential informant’s tips to establish probable cause for a vehicle stop and search? Appellant Dusty Ronald Harris argued that the drugs found in his SUV should have been suppressed because the informant gave both accurate and inaccurate information. The Tenth Circuit, sitting without oral argument, affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and took the opportunity to articulate a refined approach to “mixed-accuracy” informant reports.

The decision, though issued as an unpublished “Order and Judgment,” is citable for its persuasive value and will likely influence police practice and future suppression litigation within and beyond the Tenth Circuit.

Summary of the Judgment

• The district court found probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle based primarily on information supplied by a long-term confidential informant (CI).
• The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s fact findings for clear error and the ultimate probable-cause determination de novo.
• Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the panel held that the CI was “sufficiently reliable” because:

• the CI had a proven track record over 18 months, producing arrests and convictions;
• key aspects of the CI’s story (Harris’s Denver trip, his plan to leave a truck as collateral, and his return near the predicted time) displayed insider knowledge not available to casual observers; and
• partial inaccuracies (color of the car; gender of the passenger) did not vitiate the overall reliability.

• Accordingly, the district court’s refusal to suppress the methamphetamine, fentanyl, and scale was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Neal, 500 F.2d 305 (10th Cir. 1974) – foundational Tenth Circuit authority that a search warrant or probable cause may rest on CI information if the informant or the tip is shown to be reliable.
• United States v. Long, 774 F.3d 653 (10th Cir. 2014) – emphasized that reliability can derive from the informant’s own track record, corroboration, or both.
• United States v. Samuels, 493 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2007) – allowed courts to consider both historical reliability and conduct leading up to the challenged search when evaluating credibility.
• United States v. Burleson, 657 F.3d 1040 (10th Cir. 2011) and United States v. Cruz, 977 F.3d 998 (10th Cir. 2020) – established clear-error review for factual findings at suppression hearings, while viewing facts in the light favorable to the prevailing party.
• United States v. Hernandez, 847 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017) & Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) – provided the de novo standard for mixed questions of law and fact concerning probable cause.

The Harris panel synthesized these cases to hold that even where an informant provides some erroneous predictions, substantial corroboration of insider-type details can satisfy probable cause.

Legal Reasoning

1. Dual Reliability Evaluation. The panel embraced Samuels by treating reliability as a composite of (a) past performance and (b) present corroboration. Agent Patrick’s testimony that the CI had aided “successful criminal investigations and prosecutions” over 1.5 years gave historical heft.
2. First-Hand Knowledge Indicator. The court highlighted details that a bystander could not easily know—Harris would leave his truck as collateral in Denver, change cars, and arrive around 11 a.m. These facts suggested direct communication between Harris and the CI.
3. Partial Inaccuracies Do Not Negate Probable Cause. Relying on Long, the panel stressed that the Fourth Amendment does not demand “perfect precision.” Discrepancies about car color or passenger gender were “minor” compared with the corroborated core claim: Harris was transporting illicit drugs that day.
4. Government-Friendly Inference Rule. On appellate review, evidence is construed in favor of the government and the district court’s ruling. This deferential lens strengthened the district court’s credibility assessment.

Impact

1. Operational Guidance for Law Enforcement. Officers may now feel more secure relying on an informant even when some predictions flop, provided other “inside” details are borne out and the informant has a proven track record.

2. Suppression Litigation. Defense counsel will have to overcome Harris when arguing that mixed accuracy undermines probable cause. Expect intensified focus on whether the accurate portions truly reflect unique, non-public knowledge.

3. Unpublished but Persuasive. Although not precedential under 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A), district courts in the Tenth Circuit frequently rely on such orders for guidance. Other circuits may cite Harris for its pragmatic approach to informant errors.

4. Potential Supreme Court Interest. The decision aligns with the flexible “totality of the circumstances” test from Illinois v. Gates, reducing the odds of certiorari, but the mixed-accuracy nuance could attract future review if circuit splits emerge.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Probable Cause: A common-sense belief, based on reasonably trustworthy information, that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. It is a lower threshold than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Confidential Informant (CI): A person who supplies information to law-enforcement officers under a promise of confidentiality, often to reduce their own liability or obtain payment.
• Motion to Suppress: A request by a defendant asking the court to exclude evidence that is believed to have been obtained in violation of constitutional rights.
• Clear-Error Review: An appellate standard whereby factual findings are upheld unless the appellate court is left with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake has been made.
• De Novo Review: “From the beginning” review. The appellate court substitutes its own legal judgment for that of the lower court without deference.
• Totality of the Circumstances: A holistic assessment that considers all factors together rather than applying a rigid checklist.

Conclusion

United States v. Harris supplies a nuanced yet practical clarification of informant reliability: partial inaccuracies do not doom probable cause when other tip details display inside knowledge and are independently corroborated. The case reinforces the “totality of the circumstances” ethos and equips law-enforcement officers and trial courts with a workable standard in the gray areas of informant-based searches. For defense practitioners, Harris signals the need to uncover deeper credibility flaws or lack of corroboration if they intend to prevail on future suppression motions.