Barnes, J.
….
Sometime in August 2013, Detective Sergeant J. Michael Howell of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department received information from a confidential informant (“CI”) asserting that Gerth was selling marijuana from his home in Westfield. Shortly after receiving this information, however, the CI was “deactivated” because he had not completed all of the obligations required of him before his case was adjudicated. [Record citations omitted throughout.] After the CI was deactivated, “the investigation on David Gerth at that point stopped.” However, the following month Detective Howell received an email from a fellow officer relaying an anonymous tip that Gerth was dealing marijuana.
On September 19, 2013, Detective Howell applied for and obtained a search warrant for a canine drug sniff at Gerth’s residence and around the outbuildings on his property. The probable cause affidavit submitted with the warrant application stated [that the CI “had provided accurate information in the past,” identified and provided a partial address for Gerth, and stated that Gerth was selling marijuana’ and that an “anonymous crime tip … from an unknown subject” corroborated the tip. The dog alerted to drugs, leading to discovery of substantial evidence of marijuana dealing inside Gerth’s home.]
….
Gerth argues that the two hearsay tips in the probable cause affidavit lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support the issuance of a search warrant. …
….
The probable cause affidavit in this case stated that the CI “had provided accurate information in the past . . . .” It is true “that a statement in an affidavit declaring that the informant has previously supplied valid information is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of facts as to the credibility of the informant.” [Citation omitted.] However, a conclusory statement such as that an informant has “provided accurate information in the past,” without any elaboration, is frowned upon. … We generally have not regarded such generic statements to be sufficient to establish an informant’s credibility.
The issuance of the search warrant was also based on the later, completely anonymous tip that Gerth was selling marijuana. There is absolutely no indication of this informant’s credibility, even less than for the previously-mentioned CI. The State contends nonetheless that the two informants reciprocally corroborated each other’s information, thereby lending credibility to both of them. We disagree. … None of [the Eighth Circuit cases the State cites] held that two informants with insufficiently established credibility could both be found reciprocally credible for giving the same information, particularly where, as here, the information lacked detail or specifics. [Citations omitted.]
….
Furthermore, Detective Howell omitted information from the probable cause affidavit regarding the CI’s credibility that we deem to be highly material. Detective Howell failed to mention in the affidavit that the CI was deactivated for failure to complete the requirements of his CI agreement before adjudication of his underlying case shortly after providing his tip regarding Gerth. Moreover, Detective Howell evidently believed that the CI’s tip was not worth following up on after the CI was deactivated; Detective Howell failed to mention in the affidavit that he stopped investigating Gerth after the CI’s deactivation. In other words, one could infer that law enforcement itself did not consider the CI’s tip to be trustworthy enough to warrant further investigation, but that fact was not disclosed to the magistrate.
….
… Such information directly impacts assessment of the CI’s credibility—which already was only supported by a bare-bones recitation that he had provided accurate information in the past. Even if that recitation had been sufficient, this reckless material omission of fact regarding the CI’s credibility leads us to discount that credibility. We conclude that the two uncorroborated tips from informants with insufficiently established credibility failed to provide sufficient evidence of probable cause for issuance of the warrant.
This brings us to the question of good faith. Exclusion of evidence recovered pursuant to a search warrant issued by a judge or magistrate is not required when the officer obtaining the warrant has acted in objective good faith and within the scope of the warrant. [Citation omitted.] …
….
We have already held that Detective Howell recklessly omitted material facts regarding the CI’s credibility from the probable cause affidavit. This is conduct that can and should be deterred by the exclusionary rule. [Citation omitted.] Thus, it would be inappropriate in this case to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. [Footnote omitted.] The evidence recovered from Gerth’s residence following issuance of the original search warrant for the canine sniff should have been suppressed and not introduced into evidence. …
….
The trial court erred in introducing the evidence recovered from Gerth’s residence into evidence. We reverse Gerth’s convictions.
Reversed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.