The defendant, Richard Robinson, was charged with violation of the controlled substances act: knowingly and intentionally possessing heroin, MCLA 335.341(4)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(4)(a), on November 21, 1974. The defendant moved to suppress the seized narcotics alleging the illеgality of the search and seizure. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case on January 14, 1975. The people appeal from that decision.
A summary of the facts leading to the defendant’s arrest is as follows: The police received a phone call from a known, and previously reliable, informant. The informant told the poliсe officer that the bartender at the United Bar was selling heroin; that he was seen passing out manila coin-type envelopes to patrons in the bar in exchange for money. He also described the bartender in minute detаil. The informer did not, however, relate the basis of his information.
The arresting officer on arrival at the bar saw *289 the defendant bartender remove a brown bag from his pocket and place it under the bar when he observed the presence of the police officers. The officer then seized the bag, found, that it contained what he believed to be heroin and arrested the defendant.
The arresting officer also testified that he and the other officers were known in the bar and that the bar was known for drug traffic.
The issue in this case is whether or not the police officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant and search the bag that he had concealed.
The standard for probable cause was stated as follows in
People v Wolfe,
When only an informant’s information is involved, two requirements must exist: first, the police officer should have a basis for finding that the informant is reliable, and second, the officer should be informed of some of the underlying circumstаnces from which the informant drew his conclusion.
Aguilar v Texas,
As to the furtive gesture Michigan law is clear that a furtive gesture alone is not a sufficient bаsis for probable cause.
People v Pitts,
40 Mich App
*290
567;
In the case at bar there was suspicion on the part of the police, based on the informant’s tip, that the defendant was dеaling in drugs. The case therefore falls under the rule of Hall and the officer did have probable cause for seаrching the bag.
While there is no Michigan case dealing with the same facts as this case, a defective informant’s tiр under
Aguilar
in conjunction with a furtive gesture, a recent Colorado case,
People v Williams,
— Colo —;
The Colorado court in reaching this decision put emphasis upon the faсt that the informant’s tip was very detailed so that it could not have been the product of a casual rumor. They also noted that all the details of the informant’s tip were verified by the officer before he took any actiоn. The court went on to hold: "We adhere to the philosophy expressed by the United States Supreme Court in
Draper v United States[358
US 307, 313;
This case is similar to the Colorado case in that the informаnt’s tip did not relate the basis of his information but was very detailed. The police did verify the details of the informant’s tip аnd there was suspicious activity as in the Colorado case. Suspicious activity was the furtive gesture of the defendant upon seeing the police officers in the bar. Reasonable suspicion is also created by the fact that the police knew the bar was known for drug traffic.
We hold that there was probable cause for the search.
Reversed and remanded.