Volume 58 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Informant — Test.</bold> A search warrant affidavit that contains hearsay information must<page_number>Page 818</page_number> show that the information is reliable and that the basis of the informant's information is credible. <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Affidavit — Sufficiency —</bold> <bold>Review.</bold> In determining the sufficiency of a search warrant affidavit, a reviewing court must interpret the affidavit in a commonsense and realistic fashion and resolve doubts in favor of the validity of the warrant. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Informant — Reliability —</bold> <bold>Inferences — Identification of Informant.</bold> A magistrate requested to issue a search warrant may draw reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances, including an inference as to the identity of the informant who provided information to the police. <bold>[4] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Informant —</bold> <bold>Non-professional Informant — Reliability — Presumption.</bold> Identified citizen informants who provide information used in a search warrant affidavit are presumed to be reliable. <bold>[5] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Informant — Reliability —</bold> <bold>Detailed Description.</bold> The degree of specific detail provided by an informant is relevant to a determination of the informant's reliability. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Evidence — Other Offenses or Acts — Lustful</bold> <bold>Disposition.</bold> Evidence of the lustful disposition of a criminal defendant charged with a sex crime is not admissible under ER 404(b) unless such disposition was directed toward the victim of the crime. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Review — Harmless Error — Admission of</bold> <bold>Evidence.</bold> Evidentiary error in a criminal prosecution is not prejudicial if, within reasonable probabilities, the outcome of the trial would not have been materially affected if the error had not occurred.