the ci doesn't spend the agreed apon amount on drugs leaves with contranband a sweatshirt from inside the house and also returns with extra money. Conviently the police forget to say anything about these issues in report in the ci statement is where this added information is found
Normally, the term "controlled buy" refers to a situation where an informant is searched before the buy, has no money, is given a set amount of money, enters the location, comes back, turns over what he has acquired and/or any money, and is then searched again. If he goes in without drugs, but comes out with drugs, that would show probable cause to believe drugs can be found at that location. It would not lose its status as a controlled buy if the informant steals something, or comes out with actual gifts, or spends less than anticipated. As long as he exits the location with something illegal he did not have when he went in, that would be enough for a search warrant for the location, provided that the search warrant is acquired in a timely way. If only 1 or 2 days have passed between the buy and the warrant, that is timely enough. A complex question arises when the period of time is longer, and different courts might reach different results.
First warrants here in Snohomish County are approved on very thin evidence, often by affidavit given over the phone. If the warrant is otherwise valid, any evidence seized will be admissible, except in very rare situations such as the discovery the applying for the warrant intentionally misled the court issuing the warrant.
As for police reports leaving out critical information that could help your case, it happens all the time.
As for the first answer given by a lawyer from Chicago, I found it arrogant, condescending, and violation, in spirit, if not in fact, of Washington Rules of Professional conduct, as he is not licensed to practice law in Washington. If there was anything resembling advice I would consider filing a complaint. I believe one of the most important aspects of my job is to answer any question a client has, and demistify the criminal justice systemvas it operates here in Everett, Washington, where I live and have practiced criminal defense for 17 years.
I urge this gentleman to remove the post. It demeans the questioner and reflects badly on my local bar, and the profession as a whole.
As for the police reorts
Warrants are complicated matters with lots of nuance. As a general rule, a warrant must be supported by probable cause and describe the place to be searched and the persons (or things) to be seized with particularity.
Nothing in your post gives rise to a challenge about the validity of the will. STRONGLY recommend you hire a criminal defense attorney and after going over ALL the facts it may be that attorney can find something you CAN hang your hat on. Best of luck to you.