doing so while driving a car from which his identity might easily be traced, the informant was in a position to be held accountable for his intervention.” In addition to having an even stronger basis than in Marben for thinking the informant credible, the officer had information as solid as that in Marben for thinking that the informant had obtained her information in a reliable way. Clearly, either the informant or the driver had seen the car in question drive through the red light. Under the circumstances, we conclude, as we did in Marben, that the officer was as justified in stopping the car to investigate the violation as if he himself has seen the violation. Reversed and judgment of conviction reinstated. 1 . Cf., State v. Lindquist, 295 Minn. 398, 400, 205 N.W.2d 333, 335 (1973) (<HOLDING>); State v. Williams, 638 S.W.2d 417, 420
holding that the officer played no role in the prosecution because the police report provided to the prosecutor did not contain false information holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction holding a fact question exists regarding probable cause where a citizen provided inaccurate information to the police and the police made an arrest without conducting a reasonable investigation holding that police were justified in arresting person on basis of information provided directly to police by named citizen informer reliance on the information was justified in part because the informant by giving her name presumably knew that the police could arrest her for making a false report