When probable cause is based on a confidential informant, is it sufficient for law enforcement to establish the informant's reliability by the informant self-corroborating?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON REVIEW 1. When probable cause in support of a search warrant is based on the word of a confidential informant, is it sufficient for law enforcement to establish the reliability or veracity of the informant by having her “self-corroborate” her own reliability by, as in this case, accepting her explanation that a facially innocent phone call was, in fact, a call to arrange a drug transaction? 2. When a search warrant affidavit misrepresents a facially innocent phone call between two people discussing a plan to meet as an unequivocal and unambiguous phone call to arrange a drug transaction, does the affiant thereby usurp the magistrate’s constitutional authority to determine what inferences may be drawn from evidence and to ultimately determine whether a search warrant affidavit establishes probable cause to search? 3. Is a search warrant supported by probable cause and in compliance with the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement when it authorizes a search of all cars controlled or owned by the defendant, but the affidavit merely states that, at some unknown time in the past, defendant traveled to another state to obtain drugs and that, in general, drug dealers use vehicles to traffic in narcotics? 4. Is a state search warrant valid for purposes of the Fourth Amendment if, pursuant to state law, it has become null and void by the time of its execution? ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings below are as follows: 1. United States of America v. Ronald Wayne Thrasher, United States District Court, District of Oregon, Case Number 6:17-CR00274-MC-1. The judgment was entered on December 30, 2000. 2. United States of America v. Ronald Wayne Thrasher, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case Number 2030275. The judgment was entered on March 31, 2022.