In People v. Hansborough (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 579, the affiant stated that a confidential informant had said that he had seen the defendant preparing cocaine for sale and selling cocaine at two specified locations in the preceding five days. He also stated that the informant "'is reliable because he/she gives me information more than two (2) times in the past month about sales of cocaine, and each time the information has resulted in a search warrant being issued and served, with seizures of quantities of cocaine, arrest and filing with the District Attorney's Office.'" (Id. at p. 582.) The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress. (Id. at pp. 582-583.) It found that the informant was reliable, but it nevertheless concluded that there had to be at least some corroboration of the informant's statements -- "'some showing of the veracity of the current information being given.'" (Id. at p. 583.) The appellate court reversed. It explained: "The affiant stated the detailed information the informant provided the officers about the location to be searched and defendant. The affiant also stated the informant had twice within the last two months given him information leading to the seizure of cocaine, arrests and the filing of informations with the district attorney's office. The officer further stated the information provided by the informant had not been false or misleading. "It would have been the better practice for the affiant to have stated the details surrounding the informant's reliability in a more factual fashion. However, this court is required to interpret the affidavit in a commonsense, rather than a hypertechnical manner. . . Accordingly, this affidavit is sufficiently factual so as to require the trial court and this court to find there is a substantial basis stated in the affidavit for the conclusion there was probable cause to issue the warrant." (People v. Hansborough, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 584.)