NAJAM, J.
. . . [A]s the State conceded at oral argument, the holding in Pawloski no longer applies to probable cause determinations. More recently, our supreme court held:
We noted in Pawloski[] “that the requirement for corroboration is not totally eliminated. The amount of evidence necessary to satisfy the probable cause test is largely determined on a case-by-case basis.”
Upon reflection, this goes a bit too far. We continue to believe that there may well be greater indicia of reliability in the report of the “concerned citizen” as distinguished from the “professional informant”—though again the totality of the circumstances controls—but this goes only to reasonable suspicion, not, as the prior cases suggest, probable cause.
Kellems v. State, 842 N.E.2d 352, 356 (Ind. 2006) (internal citation omitted). In other words, a court determining the existence of probable cause must still determine the reliability of the information or the credibility of the “cooperative citizen” informant. To the extent the trial court concluded that Thomas was inherently credible simply because he was a cooperating citizen informant, the trial court erred.
. . . .
In sum, an eleven-year-old child reported to her father [Thomas] the presence of marijuana in the home she shared with her mother and her mother’s boyfriend, Hurst. The father relayed that report to IMPD. An officer was dispatched to check on the welfare of the child and met Father in front of Mother’s apartment. There, the officer viewed the texted photograph that the eleven-year-old had sent to her father’s phone. And a detective also viewed the photograph on the phone at the scene and confirmed that it appeared to show marijuana.
This is not a case where the affiant relied only upon the opinion of an eleven-year-old child that there was marijuana present in her home. The texted photograph viewed by the officers corroborated Thomas’ report, and it is a reasonable inference that the date and time information on Thomas’ cell phone indicated that the picture had been taken recently. We also agree with the trial court’s observation that children are likely to report suspicious activity to their parents and that parents in turn will transmit that information to law enforcement. Thus, we conclude that the photograph corroborated the hearsay. See Ind. Code §35-33-5-2(b). As such, when viewed from a totality of the circumstances, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence before the magistrate to support a finding of probable cause and that the trial court did not err when it denied Hurst’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the search warrant.
MAY, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.