28
found that information given by a person under arrest constituted probable cause when viewed in relation to the fact that the defendant was found at the place where the informer had said she would be and where her husband had denied that she was. See also People v. Howard, 173 Cal. App. 2d 787, where information given by a group passing forged checks was held to be sufficiently corroborated by the defendant's attempted flight in slamming a door in an officer's face.
Whether or not it would itself constitute probable cause for an arrest, the information given by Hom Way to the agent was entitled to be given considerable weight. It had sufficient earmarks of credibility to justify, indeed to require, investigation. The agents would have been derelict in their duty had they failed to pursue the matter further. And when, in the course of their inquiry, other events (discussed below, pp. 28–33) occurred which gave support to Hom Way's information, the agents had probable cause to arrest petitioner Toy.
2. The actions of Toy, when he learned that the man at his door was a federal narcotics agent, were sufficient corroboration of the prior information to constitute probable cause for Toy's arrest.
The officers did not proceed to arrest Toy simply upon the basis of Hom Way's designation of Toy as the supplier of narcotics. Rather, the agents proceeded immediately to investigate by interviewing Toy. They did not go to the door in a group, as would have been the case had an arrest been intended. One of the officers remained as far away as half a block
