Defendant asserts that the affidavit fails to demonstrate either the reliability of the unnamed person's information or that person's credibility. In State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196, 200, 816 P.2d 612 (1991), we said that ORS 133.545(4) ORS 133.545(4) provides:

In addition, the unnamed informant's basis of knowledge must be established. ORS 133.545(4); State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196, 816 P.2d 612 (1991), rev den 314 Or. 392 (1992). Here, the CI's basis of knowledge was established.

In contrast, we recently examined an affidavit that reported information from a "confidential reliable informant" (CRI), who had received his information from a named person. State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196, 816 P.2d 612 (1991). We applied the "totality of the circumstances" test to determine whether the affidavit as a whole contained information sufficient to support a search warrant.

Defendant's argument to the contrary is, as noted, predicated on notions of “staleness.” In State v. Young, 108 Or.App. 196, 204, 816 P.2d 612 (1991), rev. den., 314 Or. 392, 840 P.2d 710 (1992), we summarized the essential principles:

Our purpose in reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit supporting an application for a search warrant is to determine whether, on the basis of the information in the affidavit, a neutral and detached magistrate could have concluded that there was probable cause to believe that a search would discover the specified things in the specified places. State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196, 200, 816 P.2d 612 (1991), rev den 314 Or. 392 (1992). In reviewing the issuance of a search warrant, we defer to the issuing magistrate's determination of probable cause and resolve doubtful cases by the preference for searches that are conducted under the authority of warrants rather than without prior judicial authorization.

The requirement that the affidavit establish the informant's basis of knowledge gives the "issuing magistrate a basis for determining the weight to give the information supplied by the informant." State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196,201,816 P.2d 612 (1991), rev den 314 Or. 392 (1992). If the affidavit provides no facts for evaluating the basis of the informant's knowledge, then the informant's statements must be stricken from the affidavit. State v. McBride, 96 Or. App. 268, 276, 773 P.2d 379, rev den 308 Or. 184 (1989); State v. Fink, 79 Or. App. 590, 594, 720 P.2d 372, rev den 302 Or. 36 (1986).

" Information that would reveal the identity of the informant "may be disclosed, even for an in camera disclosure, only if the trial court 'is not satisfied that the information was received from an informer reasonably believed to be reliable or credible.' " State v. Young , 108 Or.App. 196, 206, 816 P.2d 612 (1991), rev. den. , 314 Or. 392, 840 P.2d 710 (1992) (quoting OEC 510(4)(c) ). "If disclosure of the identity of the informer is made in camera , the record thereof shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal, and the contents shall not otherwise be revealed without consent of the government unit." OEC 510(4)(c).

Further, although the informant's observation occurred 24 hours before Passadore's encounter with defendant, the information was not "stale," that is, there was a reasonable inference that the evidence was still where the informant saw it. See State v. Young, 108 Or App 196, 204, 816 P2d 612 (1991), rev den, 314 Or 392 (1992) (defining "stale" information). Taking into account the relatively brief interval between observation and encounter and the fact that two ounces of methamphetamine is more than a person would consume in that interval, see State v. Alvarez-Garcia, 212 Or App 663, 665, 159 P3d 357 (2007) (noting that 13.2 grams of methamphetamine is enough for 52 individual uses), Passadore could reasonably have concluded that at least some of the methamphetamine was still in defendant's car.

Defendant contends that the affidavit provided an inadequate basis for the magistrate to find that Mickel's assertions were reliable. Where, as here, the information in an affidavit comes from a named informant, our inquiry "is whether under the 'totality of the circumstances,' the information is sufficiently reliable to support issuance of a search warrant." State v. Brotherton, 123 Or. App. 243, 247, 859 P.2d 565 (1993) (quoting State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196, 203, 816 P.2d 612 (1991, rev den 314 Or. 392 (1992)). We look to the affidavit for indicia of the reliability of Mickel's statements.

The requirement that the affidavit establish the basis of knowledge "gives the 'issuing magistrate a basis for determining the weight to give the information supplied by the informant.' " State v. Cotter/Ray, 125 Or. App. 210, 212, 864 P.2d 875 (1993) (quoting State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196, 816 P.2d 612 (1991), rev den 314 Or. 392 (1992)). In this case, the basis of the CI's knowledge was the drug transaction that he witnessed and defendant Thornton's statements. That was a sufficient basis for the issuing magistrate to give weight to the CI's statements, assuming the veracity of the CI was established.