Thank you for looking at this. I understand that it's complicated, and I have bounced this off an attorney. I'm interested in this warrant precisely because it's complicated. I wanted to get bounce it around and get some insight from intelligent people such as yourself.

It actually gets more complicated as subsequently there was a search warrant granted in Arizona to search suspect LARRY's residence based on this affidavit.

To answer your question, the contraband seized as a result of the search warrant was a small empty (except for residue) baggie containing meth. Also, not surprisingly, a wallet located right where the informant said he put it (the green pickup) that contained twelve (not the ten the informant stated) counterfeit $100 bills.

I'll also add that when the report of the search was filed it did not mention that the wallet found in the truck with the bills was placed there by the informant or even that they had information that it would be there. They put in a context that implies that they simply discovered it there as a result of a good and thorough search of the property.

I guess what intrigues me most are the statements the informant made that demonstrated hostility he had for the suspects, and that all the "evidence" was given to the police, or planted by, the informant. And the Judge's apparent disregard of the implications.

When I read this information I had the feeling that probable caused was established; to get a search warrant for the informants residence. He was the one that without question was in possession of the counterfeit money, and was in possession of it for a long period of time.

Again, thank you for your attention.