gang affiliation, and vehicle information add little to the Cl’s reliability.” Second, the district court found that the facts that were corroborated were “easily obtained” and thus inadequate to bolster the Cl’s credibility. Third, the district court stated that because the controlled buy was unsuccessful, “the Cl’s information concerning drug activity at the residence was never sufficiently corroborated.” Accordingly, the district court concluded that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The state contends that the district court erroneously minimized or discounted the value of the corroborative facts. We agree. Even corroboration of minor details lends credence to an informant’s tip and is relevant to the probable-cause determination. See Wiley, 366 N.W.2d at 269 (<HOLDING>); McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d at 701, 704 (finding
holding an informants tip can establish reasonable suspicion without investigative confirmation if the tip is credible 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 a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to require disclosure of an informants name recognizing that although not a key detail corroboration of defendants name residence and make of vehicle lent credence to informants tip holding corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability