Allen, 211 F.3d at 975. And, importantly, the controlled buy does not stand on its own; rather, it serves to bolster Compton’s credibility as an informant. “It is enough, for purposes of assessing probable cause, that ‘corroboration through other sources of information reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale,’ thus providing ‘a substantial basis for crediting the [informant’s] hearsay.’ ” Gates, 462 U.S. at 244-45, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)). By substantiating one detail of Compton’s story — a detail, moreover, unique to Brian Howard’s modus operandi — the controlled buy reduced the chance that Compton’s tip was a “reckless or prevaricating tale.” Id.; see also Gunter, 551 F.3d at 480-81 (<HOLDING>). For this reason, we find unavailing
holding corroboration is not a necessity where confidential informants reliability was well established and his tip was based on direct personal observation of criminal activity holding that a known informants statement can support probable cause even though the affidavit fails to provide any additional basis for the known informants credibility recognizing that a suspects prior unlawful activity or related convictions can corroborate information supplied by informants holding corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability holding that probable cause may be gleaned from the hearsay statements of informants