THROUGH PRESENTATION OF SEVERAL VIGNETTES, THE FILM DEMONSTRATES CORRECT PROCEDURES SURROUNDING USE OF INFORMANT INFORMATION. POLICY MAY NOT OBTAIN SEARCH WARRANTS BASED ON CITIZEN INFORMATION UNLESS (1) THE CITIZEN GIVES FACTUAL DATA, NOT OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM PRESUMED FACT; (2) THE INFORMANT SPEAKS FROM FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE; AND (3) THE INFORMANT IDENTIFIES HIMSELF OR HERSELF, GIVING AN ADDRESS AND OTHER PERTINENT DATA. POLICE OFFICERS IN NONEMERGENCY SITUATIONS MUST CHECK OUT THE VALIDITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION DATA BEFORE OBTAINING A WARRANT. INFORMATION GOTTEN SECOND HAND FROM A RELIABLE WITNESS CAN BE USED FOR CONTINUATION OF AN INVESTIGATION BUT NOT FOR OBTAINING A WARRANT. IN THE VIGNETTES DEPICTED, A TELEPHONE REPAIRMAN DETECTS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA WHILE INSTALLING A TELEPHONE, A HOTEL MAID DISCOVERS BRICKS OF MARIHUANA WHILE CLEANING A ROOM (IN THIS CASE A SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT NEEDED SINCE RENTING A MOTEL ROOM IMPLIES ALLOWING EMPLOYEES AND POLICE OFFICERS THE RIGHT TO ENTER), A CITIZEN IS EYEWITNESS TO MUGGING AND FLAGS DOWN A POLICE CAR, AND A CRIMINAL DIVULGES INFORMATION DURING THE EXCITEMENT OF A CRIMINAL TRANSACTION. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE OFICERS COULD USE THE DIVULGED INFORMATION SINCE THE INFORMER WAS NOT UNDER ARREST AND WAS NOT DECEIVED INTO BELIEVING THAT THE OFFICERS WERE NONOFFICERS. IN ALL CASES, INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE UNTESTED INFORMER WAS SUFFICIENT WHEN CORROBORATED, IN ESSENTIAL RESPECTS, BY OTHER FACTS, SOURCES, OR CIRCUMSTANCES. SUCH CORROBORATION NEED NOT ITSELF AMOUNT TO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST; ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE THE ELEMENT OF RELIABILITY THAT IS MISSING WHEN THE POLICE HAVE NO PRIOR EXPERIENCES WITH THE INFORMANT. FOR PART ONE OF THIS FILM, SEE NCJ 57539. (DAG)