Shotguns and halogen lights ready, the Minneapolis SWAT team heaved a battering ram into the entrance of the North Side duplex and burst up to the second story.
It was still early on the February 2020 morning. Andre Moore stirred awake to a voice shouting about a warrant. He stumbled out of bed in pajama pants, expecting to find a friend playing a joke. Instead he ran into a dozen police officers ripping apart his living room. Moore dropped to the carpet and raised his hands in surrender.
The officers left that day with one handgun, 2 pounds of meth and Moore in zip ties. If convicted, Moore faced 13 years in prison.
But it didn't go that way. Over the next seven months, what had looked like a rock-solid case turned to dust as two public defenders uncovered what a judge called a "reckless disregard for truth" in the police investigation.
Chief among the questions that unraveled the case: Did Minneapolis police officer Tony Partyka embellish key information from a trusted informant — or worse?
"We think that the confidential informant in this case may not have existed," said Tanya Bishop, one of Moore's public defenders.
The case exposes the inherent conflict at the heart of confidential informants as a tool in American policing. In order to be effective, informants must be shrouded in secrecy. But that secrecy can make it impossible to tell how effective informants really are.
Informants trade intelligence to police, often for money or mercy in their own criminal cases. They can be valuable to helping solve crimes. As the homicide rate climbed in Minneapolis over the past year, detectives have frequently cited confidential informants in reports as key to making arrests.