26
cesses that went into that judgment. The officer was experienced and could draw upon his investigative training and experience in making his appraisal. If petitioner wished to attack the basis of the officer's judgment, it was open to him to seek further details on cross-examination or to offer countervailing evidence. Petitioners cannot rely upon mere conjecture by counsel (R. 60) that the federal agent could have known Hom Way only by limited investigation or that such investigation could not have disclosed probable cause for reliance on him.
Furthermore, the evidence did show circumstances pointing to the reliability of the information beyond the officer's personal appraisal of Hom Way. The latter, while under arrest, gave specific information that he had obtained an ounce (a substantial amount) of heroin the night before from a particular person who operated a laundry on a named street in San Francisco. The very fact that Hom Way was this specific in his statement, while under arrest, tended to give credence to his information, for the information was in sufficient detail to be checked and Hom Way could and would be confronted with any discrepancies if the information proved to be incorrect—as he doubtless knew.
The specificity of information given by an informant is a factor which the courts have considered in determining whether an officer can reasonably rely upon it. See Jackson v. United States, C.A. D.C., No. 16631, decided February 8, 1962. In Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, one of the elements which entered into the evaluation of probable cause was the
