OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge.The State of Minnesota appeals from an order suppressing evidence seized after police conducted a warrantless arrest of respondent Shilow Cook. The district court granted Cook’s motion to suppress and concluded that police lacked probable cause to arrest Cook based solely on infor*666mation received from a confidential reliable informant (CRI). Cook has not filed a brief in response to the state’s appeal, and this matter is proceeding pursuant to Minn. R. Cív.App. P. 142.03 (if respondent fails to file brief, case shall be determined on merits).
Because the CRI’s information lacked sufficient detail and range to establish the CRI’s basis of knowledge, we affirm the district court’s decision that police did not have probable cause to arrest Cook without a warrant.
FACTS
The facts of this case are largely undisputed. The parties stipulated to the facts contained in the complaint and police reports, and the testimony presented at the suppression hearing was consistent with the facts contained in these documents.
At the hearing on Cook’s motion to suppress, Minneapolis Police Officer Michael Doran testified that on the morning of June 22, 1999, he received a telephone call from a CRI. Doran had worked with this particular CRI in the past and had met him in person. The CRI had previously provided Doran and other officers known to Doran with information that had led to at least 12 other convictions. The CRI was paid for his information. To Doran’s knowledge, the CRI had never given any false information.
In the two weeks prior to June 22, the CRI told Doran that a man named Shilow Cook was dealing crack cocaine in the Minneapolis area. In the June 22 phone call, the CRI told Doran that Cook was selling crack cocaine at the YMCA located at 34th and Blaisdell in Minneapolis and that he had the crack cocaine in the waistband of his pants. The CRI further described Cook as a black male in his mid-40’s, 5’6” tall, and weighing approximately 150 pounds. The CRI told Doran that Cook was wearing a red shirt, black pants, and a baseball cap. Finally, the CRI stated that Cook was driving a blue Lincoln with Minnesota license plate number 134PXH.
Within one hour, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Doran and other officers arrived at the YMCA. They saw a blue Lincoln with Minnesota license plate 134PXH parked in the lot. At approximately noon, the officers saw a man leave the YMCA. The man matched Cook’s description as given by the CRI. The officers observed the man get into the driver’s side of the blue Lincoln.
The officers approached the vehicle and placed the man under arrest. During a search, the officers found 7.2 grams of crack cocaine in the waistband of the man’s pants and $1,186 in cash in his pockets. Cook was charged with a controlled substance crime in the second degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.022, subd. 2(1) (1998) (“unlawfully possesses one or more mixtures of a total weight of six grams or more containing cocaine”).
At the suppression hearing, Doran claimed that he did not obtain a search warrant prior to arresting Cook because there was insufficient time. Doran acknowledged that the CRI never indicated that he saw Cook selling drugs. Nor is there any evidence that the CRI ever claimed he had personally purchased drugs from Cook.
ISSUE
Did the district court err in concluding that police lacked probable cause to arrest Cook and in suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to Cook’s warrantless arrest?
ANALYSIS
To prevail on appeal from a pretrial suppression order, the state must establish that the district court’s ruling constitutes clear error and that the ruling will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant. State v. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412, 416 (Minn.1998). The district court’s ruling in this case undeni*667ably has a critical impact because suppression of the evidence renders prosecution of Cook impossible. In addition, because the facts of this case are largely undisputed, the district court’s ruling presents a question of law, which this court may independently review. State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.1992).
Police may. arrest a felony suspect without a warrant in any public place1 provided they have probable cause. State v. Walker, 584 N.W.2d 763, 766 (Minn.1998). If an arrest is valid, police may conduct a warrantless search of the suspect as an incident to the arrest without additional justification. Id
In a close case, the lack of a warrant may weigh against a finding of probable cause. Id. at 769. Police are encouraged to obtain a warrant issued by a detached judge who can independently evaluate the facts to determine .if they support a probable cause finding. Id. When determining the legality of a war-rantless arrest, we look to the information that police took into consideration when making the arrest, not what they uncovered thereafter. Id The information must allow an independent determination of probable cause and not a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. State v. Doyle, 336 N.W.2d 247, 249-50 n. 1 (Minn. 1983).
Probable cause for arrest exists where the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspieioii that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime. Each ease must be determined on its own facts and circumstances, and the facts must justify more than mere suspicion but less than a conviction. ••
State v. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170, 173-74 (Minn.1978); see also State v. Riley, 568 N.W.2d 518, 523 (Minn.1997) (“[T]he police must show that they ‘reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.’ ”). The lawfulness of an arrest is determined by an objective standard that takes into account the totality of the circumstances. State v. Perkins, 582 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn.1998); Riley, 568 N.W.2d at 523.
When police rely on information provided by an informant, “all of the stated facts relating to the informer should be considered' in making a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.” State v. McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Minn.1990). Police may rely on an informant’s tip if the tip has sufficient indicia of reliability. In re Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 691 (Minn.1997). When assessing reliability, courts examine the credibility of the informant and the basis of the informant’s knowledge in light of all the circumstances. Id.
The informant in this case was undeniably credible. He was a well-known, paid informant who had been providing police with information that had led to at least 12 convictions and who had never, to Doran’s knowledge, provided false information. See State v. Camp, 590 N.W.2d 115, 119 n. 8 (Minn.1999) (informant’s reliability enhanced by history of providing accurate information); McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d at 704 (informant’s willingness to meet face-to-face with police adds to credibility). These facts are typically sufficient to establish a CRI’s credibility. See State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 136 (Minn.1999) (noting specific details of CRI’s record not necessary and statement that informant “has been used over several years successfully” may be sufficient to infer CRTs veracity) (quoting State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 269 (Minn.1985)).
*668Recitation of facts establishing a CRI’s reliability by his proven “track record,” however, does not by itself establish probable cause. See 2 Wayne R. La-Fave, Search and Seizure § 3.3(b), at 121 (3d ed.1996). The information obtained from the CRI must still show a basis of knowledge. Id. This basis of knowledge may be supplied directly, by first-hand information, such as when a CRI states that he purchased drugs from a suspect or saw a suspect selling drugs to another; a basis of knowledge may also be supplied indirectly through self-verifying details that allow an inference that the information was gained in a reliable way and is not merely based on a suspect’s general reputation or on a casual rumor circulating in the criminal underworld. Id. §§ 3.3(d), (e), at 140-62. Assessment of the CRTs basis of knowledge involves consideration of the quantity and quality of detail in the CRTs report and whether pohce independently verified important details of the informant’s report. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 331-32, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2417,110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).
In this case, the CRTs tip included a description of Cook’s clothing, physical appearance, vehicle, and present location. These details, however, fail to offer any explanation for the basis of the CRI’s claim that Cook was selling drugs. The CRI never claimed that he had purchased drugs from Cook or that he had seen Cook selling drugs. Although an inference could be made that the CRI had seen Cook that morning based on his description of Cook’s clothing, that inference still does not provide a basis for the CRI’s claim that Cook was selling drugs.
In addition, pohce did no independent corroboration other than to verify that the vehicle described by the CRI was parked in the YMCA lot and that the man leaving the YMCA and getting into the driver’s side of the vehicle matched the description of Cook given to police by the CRI. Although police were able to corroborate these details within one to one and one-half hours after receiving the CRI’s tip, these details did not predict any suspicious behavior on Cook’s part. All of .these details were entirely innocuous and lacked any incriminating aspects that might corroborate the CRTs claim that Cook was selling drugs at the YMCA. Thus, any link between Cook and illegal activity was no-nexistant.
In State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 136-37 (Minn.1999), the supreme court upheld a warrantless search of a vehicle2 based almost entirely on a tip from a known, reliable informant. There, police received a telephone call from the CRI regarding the time, place, and manner of delivery of cocaine. Id. at 132. When police saw a vehicle matching the CRTs description, the supreme court concluded that they had “reasonable articulable suspicion” to stop the vehicle to investigate. Id. at 136. The court concluded, however, that police did not have “probable cause” to search the vehicle until after they corroborated additional details provided by the CRI, including the identity of two of the vehicle’s occupants. Id.
Although the facts in Munson are similar in many respects to the facts of this case, there are several important distinctions. The CRI in Munson was able to predict that within one and one-half hours a green rental vehicle would pull up to a particular address with three occupants, two of whom the CRI identified by name. Id. When police saw a vehicle matching the CRI’s description pull up to the address at the time predicted by the CRI, they ran a license plate check and verified that it was a rental vehicle. Id. at 132-33. These facts gave police reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and question its occupants; once police verified the identity of two of the occupants, they had probable cause to *669conduct a search of the vehicle. Id. at 136-37.
Here, the details provided by the CRI did not predict any future behavior on Cook’s part. Rather, the details were simply a report of Cook’s appearance and present location, details easily obtainable by anyone, not necessarily by someone with inside information on Cook. In addition, there was nothing suspicious about the time or place of the events here, which took place at midday outside the YMCA. Finally, although the man observed coming out of the YMCA matched the description given to police by the CRI, police apparently arrested the man before verifying that he was Cook.
Under Munson, police may have had “reasonable suspicion” to legally stop and question Cook to ascertain his identity. These facts, however, do not support finding that police had “probable cause” to arrest Cook at that time. See Alabama, 496 U.S. at 329-330, 110 S.Ct. at 2416 (reasonable suspicion less demanding standard than probable cause and can be established with information that is different in quantity, content, or even reliability). As already discussed, in a close case, the lack of a warrant weigh against a finding of probable cause. See Walker, 584 N.W.2d at 769.
DECISION
The district court did not err in determining that police lacked probable cause to arrest Cook. The district court’s suppression order is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Cook was either getting into or already sitting in the driver's seat of his parked car when he was arrested. A parked car is treated as a public place for Fourth Amendment purposes. See State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98-99 (Minn.1999) (person is not "seized merely because a police officer approaches him in a public place or in a parked car and begins to ask questions”) (citation omitted).
. Probable cause to search a vehicle is basically the same as that necessary to support an arrest, with the exception that the focus is on the vehicle, not on the person to be arrested. In re Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Minn. 1997).