criminal activity on the suspect’s part.” United States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir.2000). Investigators had observed Wilson meet a heavy-set black male immediately before and after selling crack to the undercover detective on July 17, and after Wilson’s arrest on July 24 he received unsolicited calls demanding to know where he was and why he was delayed. In the officers’ presence Wilson agreed to meet the caller at the restaurant, and it was Black — who fit the description of the man driving the Lumina on July 17 — who showed up at the restaurant. In light of Wilson’s identification of Black as his supplier and the investigators’ own observations corroborating Wilson’s statement, probable cause was established. See United States v. Funches, 327 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hayes, 236 F.3d 891, 894
holding that probable cause existed to arrest for trespassing under state law holding testimony of officer and narcotics investigator who both witnessed drug transaction coupled with audio recording of transaction constituted sufficient corroboration holding that probable cause existed when trained narcotics officers observed what they believed to be a drug transaction holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law holding that if the application for a warrant contains probable cause apart from the improper information then the warrant is lawful and the independent source doctrine applies providing that the officers were not prompted to obtain the warrant by what they observed during the initial entry