Whether complete omission from an arrest warrant of a primary confidential informant's multiple prior Rule 609 [F.R.Evid.] 'dishonesty and false statement' convictions actually known to the law enforcement warrant affiant is an omission which causes the warrant to be invalid

question presented is: Whether complete omission from an arrest warrant of a primary confidential informant’s multiple prior Rule 609 [F.R.Evid.] “dishonesty and false statement” convictions actually known to the law enforcement warrant affiant — convictions for TheftFalse Representation, Theft By Swindle, Bigamy, “Theft More Than $35,000”, Aggravated Forgery, and Check Forgery — is an omission which causes the warrant to be invalid if the warrant-issuing judge’s ii probable cause determination was based on an affidavit with the omitted information exhibiting reckless disregard for the truth on the part of the law enforcement affiant. The second question presented is: Whether a law enforcement arrest warrant affiant’s actual knowledge of a primary confidential informant’s self-reported multiple prior Rule 609 [F.R.Evid.] “dishonesty and false statement” convictions creates a duty for that law enforcement warrant affiant to conduct further background investigation — at least including a check of the confidential informant’s criminal history -before presenting a warrant affidavit to a prospective warrant-issuing judge or magistrate. Currently, there is a conflict in decisional authority between at least two Circuit Courts, relative to this issue. See, Howe v. Gilpin, et al., 65 F.4th 975, 981 (8th Cir. 2023)[(this case) “An agent does not ‘violate a clearly established constitutional right by omitting information from a warrant application that he does not actually know, even if the reason is his own reckless investigation.” Hartman v. Bowles, 39 F.4th 544, 545 (8th Cir. 2022).”]; and compare to United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.8d 44, 53 (1st Cir. 2015)[* All that is required to trigger an officer’s duty of further inquiry is her knowledge of an obvious and unexplored reason to doubt the truthfulness of the allegations. (citation omitted). When confronted with such a red flag, the officer should look into the matter even if she does not believe that what she will discover is likely to vitiate probable cause. After all, the officer ili is the only party who, in this context, has the tools to undertake any meaningful investigative work. The trigger for further investigation may function even when the officer’s obvious reason only serves to diminish her confidence to some modest degree.”].