25
opportunity for judgment.[1] The question is always whether under the particular circumstances the agents acted reasonably.
In this case, agent Wong was dealing with a person (Hom Way) whose character he had had an opportunity to appraise. The court of appeals observed that there was "no showing in this case that the agent knew Hom Way to be reliable" (R. 139-140). However, the federal officer testified that he had known Hom Way for six weeks and judged him to be reliable. It was not incumbent on the prosecution to develop in the first instance all the detailed mental pro-
- ↑ Anonymous or virtually unknown informers were involved in many of the cases where reliance on an informant was held not to constitute probable cause. Worthington v. United States, 166 F. 2d 557 (C.A. 6), involved an unknown voice on the telephone, and Contee v. United States, 215 F. 2d 324 (C.A.D.C.), cited by petitioners (Pet. Br. 8), a tip from a man whose name was unknown. Similarly, in Wrightson v. United States, 222 F. 2d 556 (C.A.D.C.), cited by petitioners (Pet. Br. 8), the record disclosed no identified informer but only an "anonymous" tip (Id., 557); when further information was developed on retrial, the court found that there was probable cause for the arrest. 236 F. 2d 672, 673 (C.A.D.C.). See also People v. Goodoo, 147 Cal. App. 2d 7; People v. Thymiakas, 140 Cal. App. 2d 940, 941. In People v. Walker, 165 Cal App. 2d 462, 465, cited by petitioners (Pet. Br. 8), the court referred to the asserted absence of any previous use of the particular informants as such, "or other evidence" to establish their reliability, but then found the "other evidence" of reliability in the corroboration of the informants' correct statement of the name assumed by defendant and of defendant's then whereabouts at a hotel (Id., 465); the combination of this with observations by the officers was held to sustain the arrest.
