is, we assume, an unusual way to operate as a middleman. Compton’s inclusion of these details regarding Brian Howard’s modus operandi thus suggested some particularized basis of knowledge. And, as discussed below, these details provided investigators with the opportunity to corroborate Compton’s tip. In all, however, Compton’s tip as described in the affidavit was largely devoid of detail, and the affidavit failed to state how Compton came to his knowledge of Defendant’s operation. For those reasons, Compton’s basis of knowledge did little to bolster the credibility of his tip. See Helton, 314 F.3d at 822. C. Corroboration Where the veracity and basis of knowledge of an informant have been thoroughly established, corroboration of the tip may not be necessary. See Allen, 211 F.3d at 976 (<HOLDING>); Williams, 544 F.3d at 690 (“named informants,
holding an informants tip can establish reasonable suspicion without investigative confirmation if the tip is credible holding corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability recognizing that although not a key detail corroboration of defendants name residence and make of vehicle lent credence to informants tip 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 an informants tip if questionable can be corroborated by the observation of lawful conduct