was a fugitive from an arrest warrant during the period of the investigation, and, (5) the Informant did not report the new charges filed against him. Sanchez contends that, had the relevant facts been included in the warrant affidavit, the Magistrate Judge would not have found probable cause for the search. We do not agree. At best, the omitted information establishes that the Informant is an unsavory character with a questionable moral compass. This fact does not, per se, doom a finding of probable cause. Courts, according to well-established precedent, may consider both the reliability of the informant and the reliability of the information provided by the informant. See United States v. Goodrich, 450 F.3d 552, 560 (3d Cir.2006); see also Gates, 462 U.S. at 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (<HOLDING>). In other words, we determine probable cause
holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity holding that while an informants veracity is highly relevant to the existence of probable cause it is only one part of the larger commonsense determination recognizing that the determination is an equitable one holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a  1983 claim alleging false arrest