What must be present in addition to the testimony of an undercover officer for it to be valid in court?

For the testimony of an undercover officer to be deemed valid in court, corroborating evidence is necessary. This means that the testimony should be supported by additional facts or evidence that can independently verify the claims made by the undercover officer. Corroborating evidence strengthens the credibility of the testimony and helps establish a more reliable foundation for the case.

While other elements such as witnesses or expert analysis might lend support to a case, they are not specifically required to validate the undercover officer's testimony. An official arrest warrant is also not a requirement for the testimony itself to be considered valid; rather, it relates more to the legality of the arrest made during the operation. Hence, corroborating evidence is essential because it not only backs up the officer's account but also serves to protect against the potential for bias or inaccuracy that can arise from relying solely on one person's testimony.