Can Police Search Your Home Based Only on an Informant’s Unverified Tip? 
The Minnesota Supreme Court says no. Earlier this fall, in State v. Nagle, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an important ruling about the role of confidential informants in establishing probable cause for a warrant. The Court reversed a conviction because officers obtained a warrant to search a home based only on an informant’s claim that people had smoked methamphetamine there. The Court explained that, while officers do not always need to corroborate an informant’s tip, whether a tip is corroborated is a relevant factor under the totality of the circumstances test, and this uncorroborated tip simply did not satisfy the standard of probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant.
Back in 2022, a Willmar police officer applied for a warrant to search Nagle’s house in Benson, Minnesota. The warrant application relied primarily on a confidential informant who had previously been arrested for drug crimes and was being paid for information. The informant reported that within the last seventy-two hours they visited the home and saw meth pipes and people smoking methamphetamine. Officers conducted no independent investigation. They did not watch the home, they did not arrange a sting operation, and they did not confirm any additional activity at the residence. The judge signed the warrant based solely on the short affidavit from the confidential informant.
On the same day the warrant was signed, police searched the home and found drug paraphernalia and items that tested positive for methamphetamine. Nagle was charged with possession of a controlled substance. At a suppression hearing, the defense attorney challenged the warrant, arguing that the State failed to provide probable cause in it. The district court denied the motion and convicted Nagle. The court of appeals affirmed her conviction in a divided decision.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. The Court first acknowledged that confidential informants play a significant role in drug investigations, refusing to mandate that independent corroboration of an informant tip is required to establish probable cause when seeking a search warrant. While not adopting a bright-line restriction, the Court did establish a more nuanced approach to the issue, holding that corroboration of a tip is always a relevant consideration in a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis of probable cause. This ruling makes clear that courts must closely examine the quality of the information officers rely on, including the quality of an informant’s tip, before granting a search warrant into someone’s home.Here, the Court held that the informant’s limited tip did not show a fair probability that drugs would still be in the home at the time of the search. The tip described only a single instance of drug use by unidentified people. There was no evidence of ongoing activity, no details suggesting storage or distribution, and no reason to believe contraband would remain days later. Without more, the warrant lacked probable cause.
For Minnesotans, this decision offers an important reminder. The home receives the highest level of constitutional protection. Officers cannot rely solely on unverified rumors or thin allegations from confidential informants to enter someone’s residence. Courts will continue to examine the facts carefully to ensure that police meet the probable cause standard set by both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
Importantly, this ruling does not eliminate the use of informant-provided tips, and it does not prevent officers from seeking warrants when they have reliable information. Instead, it reaffirms that the corroboration of an informant tip is always a relevant consideration in the totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause. Ultimately, this case reinforces that while informants remain valuable tools in criminal investigations, the courts will not allow uncorroborated tips alone to override the constitutional protections afforded to one’s home.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Attorney Woodbury MN, Criminal Defense Lawyer Minnesota, Drug Crimes Attorney Minnesota.