Anonymous Tips

Module One: Course Introduction

1. Instructor introduction.

2. Explain the course objective.

3. Encourage attendees to ask questions and share feedback with  other attendees.

4. Explain that certificates will be emailed after the class.

5. Go over the three disclaimers:

• a) Laws and agency standard operating procedures may be  more restrictive. Blue to Gold is teaching the federal  standard unless otherwise stated. Therefore, students must  know their state and local requirements in addition to the  federal standard.
• b) If students have any doubts about their actions, ask a  supervisor or legal advisor.
• c) The course is not legal advice, but legal education.  Therefore, nothing we teach should be interpreted as legal  advice. Check with your agency’s legal advisor for legal  advice.

Module Two: Unidentifiable Tipsters 

1. Legal Rule: An unidentifiable tipster requires corroboration of  inside knowledge

2. Pro Tip: The key to corroboration is to explain why the  observed conduct proves the informant has inside information

3. Example: The fact that the informer was able to predict, two  days in advance, the exact clothing Draper would be wearing  dispelled the possibility that his tip was just based on rumor or  “an offhand remark heard at a neighborhood bar.” … Probably  Draper had planned in advance to wear these specific clothes so  that an accomplice could identify him. A clear inference could  therefore be drawn that the informant was either involved in the  criminal scheme himself or that he otherwise had access to  reliable, inside information.

4. Case Sample: Police received an anonymous tip that a young  man wearing a plaid shirt waiting at a bus stop had a firearm.  Without more, cops stopped and frisked the man and found a  gun. Synopsis: held that a police officer may not legally stop  and frisk anyone based solely on an anonymous tip that simply  described that person’s location and what he or she might look  like but that did not furnish information as to any illegal conduct  that the person might be planning. (Florida v. J.L) Held: This  bare bones tip was insufficient to justify stop and risk.

5. Case Sample: Police received an anonymous tip that a young  woman would leave her apartment at 3 pm, hop into a particular  car, drive to Dobey’s Motel, and have a brown briefcase filled  with drugs. Cops followed her to Dobey’s. Synopsis: On April  22, 1987, at approximately 3 p.m., Corporal B.H. Davis of the  Montgomery Police Department received a telephone call from  an anonymous person stating that Vanessa White would be  leaving 235-C Lynwood Terrace Apartments at a particular time  in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right taillight lens  broken, that she would be going to Dobey’s Motel, and that she  would be in possession of about an ounce of cocaine inside a  brown attaché case. Corporal Davis and his partner, Corporal P.  A. Reynolds, proceeded to the Lynwood Terrace Apartments.  The officers saw a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken  right taillight in the parking lot in front of the 235 building. The  officers observed respondent leave the 235 building, carrying  nothing in her hands, and enter the station wagon. They  followed the vehicle as it drove the most direct route to Dobey’s

Motel. When the vehicle reached the Mobile Highway, on which  Dobey’s Motel is located, Corporal Reynolds requested a patrol  unit to stop the vehicle. The vehicle was stopped at  approximately 4:18 p.m., just short of Dobey’s Motel. Corporal  Davis asked respondent to step to the rear of her car, where he  informed her that she had been stopped because she was  suspected of carrying cocaine in the vehicle. He asked if they  could look for cocaine, and respondent said they could look. The  officers found a locked brown attaché case in the car and, upon  request, respondent provided the combination to the lock. The  officers found marijuana in the attaché case, and placed  respondent under arrest. During processing at the station, the  officers found three milligrams of cocaine in respondent’s purse.  (Alabama v. White.) Held: This tip was reliable. Furthermore:  Per the US Supreme Court; What was important was the caller’s  ability to predict respondent’s future behavior, because it  demonstrated inside information—a special familiarity with  respondent’s affairs. The general public would have had no way  of knowing that respondent would shortly leave the building,  get in the described car, and drive the most direct route to  Dobey’s Motel.

6.

7. Case Sample: Anonymous emergency call from 14-year-old  reporting seeing “boys” that were “playing with guns” by a car  in a parking lot did not provide police with reasonable suspicion  to block defendant’s car; caller borrowed stranger’s phone,  which limited usefulness of emergency number’s tracing ability,  as well as negated any incentive to not provide false  information, call did not report a crime as carrying a firearm in  public was permitted in the state, “boys” and “playing with  guns” were not descriptive terms, caller did not report tense situation or physical confrontation, and officer did not see weapons

8. Third person’s statement that suspect had gun sufficient when corroborated by officer’s personal observation of suspect  matching description with bulge in pocket.

9. Legal Rule: The US Supreme Court implied that an anonymous  tip about a public emergency may justify stop even without  corroboration

10. In dictum, however, the Court noted that there could be cases  in which a bare accusation of this sort might suffice. It gave the  example of a report of someone carrying a bomb. If police  received a call identifying a particular suspect and saying that  he or she was holding a bomb, the police could perhaps lawfully  stop the suspect on the basis of that call, despite the caller’s  anonymity and the lack of what would ordinarily qualify as  sufficient detail and of testable and accurate predictions. On  the basis of that line in the Court’s opinion, a number of courts  have approved stops of drivers against whom anonymous  accusations of reckless or drunk driving had been made. A  reckless driver, in this view, is like a bomb in that he, she, or it  poses an imminent threat to the population. Other courts,  however, have relied on the main holding of J.L. to conclude that  such anonymous accusations would fall short of supplying  reasonable suspicion to the police, absent corroboration of  some guilty facts. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), held that a  police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely  on an anonymous tip that simply described that person’s  location and what he or she might look like but that did not  furnish information as to any illegal conduct that the person  might be planning.

11. Case Sample: Unidentified caller stated that Nissan Altima,  along with partial plate, was driven by drunk driver. Cop found  vehicle but observed no violations. Synopsis: Police officer’s observations of defendant’s conduct combined with  anonymous tip of an intoxicated driver did not establish  reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. Even though defendant,  just before traffic stop was initiated, drove to side of road and  stopped. Tip lacked sufficient information to demonstrate informant’s credibility and basis of knowledge, and defendant’s  observed conduct of slowing his vehicle at an intersection and  before stopping at a red light did not indicate that he was  involved in operating a motor vehicle under influence of  alcohol. (Harris v. Commonwealth)Held: This bare bones tip was  insufficient to justify stop and frisk. Note: Some courts view DUI  tips as “emergencies” and allow stops.

Module Three: Identifiable Tipsters 

1. Legal Rule: An identifiable tipster may supply reason to detain  if the tipster is reliable and has a basis of knowledge.

2.

3.

4. Case Sample: Reliable informant told cop that driver had gun  in waistband and was selling drugs. Synopsis: Petitioner sought  review of a judgment that granted respondent’s petition for  habeas corpus relief and reversed his convictions for illegal  possession of a handgun and heroin. On certiorari, the Court  reversed. The Court first ruled that the initial forced stop of  respondent’s car was justified because the officer had received  a tip from a known informant, who had provided the officer with  information in the past, that respondent was in a car nearby, had  a handgun concealed at his waist, and was carrying narcotics.  Thus, the Court ruled that the information carried enough  indicia of reliability to justify the stop of respondent. From that,  the Court ruled that the officer, having a reasonable belief that  respondent was armed and dangerous, made a permissible  limited protective search for the weapon at respondent’s waist,  despite the fact that the weapon was not visible from the  exterior of the car. Having seized the weapon, the officer was  provided with probable cause to arrest respondent for its  possession; the subsequent search incident to arrest, which  produced the narcotics that formed the basis for respondent’s  heroin conviction, was therefore lawful. (Adams v. Williams)

5.

6. Case Sample: a gun. Neighbor said that a known felon named  “Mookie” would have a gun. Officer saw bulge in waistband.  Synopsis: In its analysis of what Officer Bey observed upon  arrival outside 2128 North Natrona Street, the majority correctly  points out that Officer Bey observed “Mookie,” the subject of  the tip and a person with whom he was familiar, sitting in a chair  on the sidewalk with his arms folded across his chest and his  eyes closed in front of the same house which was identified in the tip and which was located in an area that the officer knew  to be a high drug-trafficking area. However, the majority’s  recitation of the facts omits one rather crucial fact. Namely,  Officer Bey, who had been told by the tipster that  “Mookie” would be carrying a gun, observed a “big bulge” in  appellant’s left front pants pocket. It was the observation of this  bulge which, in combination with the officer’s corroboration of  all other parts of the tip except for the actual witnessing of a  narcotics sale, gave Officer Bey a reasonable suspicion that  criminal activity was afoot. Indeed, to hold otherwise is to  contravene the persuasive precedent of our sister states as well  as the federal courts which have unanimously concluded that  observation of a hidden bulge pursuant to a tip predicting the  presence of an identifiable armed suspect at a certain location  gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot  and, hence, a justifiable Terry stop.

7.

8. Case Sample: Manager called 911 and said that a drive thru  customer as intoxicated. Synopsis: A manager at a McDonald’s  on U.S. 1 in Vero Beach, was working at the drive-through one  evening at around 10:30 p.m., when the defendant, Henry Evans,  placed an order. Ms. Steele believed that Evans was intoxicated  and testified that, to the best of her knowledge, Evans “was  wasted.” She noticed that he was “incoherent,” “fumbling to get  the bag of food,” and “his eyes were . . . really dilated.”  Furthermore, she could smell alcohol. While Evans was still in  line between two other vehicles, Ms. Steele phoned 911. She  reported her name, her address, her location, and that she was  the manager of the McDonald’s. Likewise, she reported the customer’s apparent drunkenness, and provided a description  of his vehicle — a small blue Honda low rider truck — and its tag  number. (State v. Evans) Held: Identified citizen informers are  presumed reliable. .

9.

10. Case Sample: “Showing southbound Highway 1 at mile-marker  88, silver Ford pickup. Plate of 8-David-94925. Ran RP off the  roadway and was last seen approximately five ago.” Synopsis: At 3:47 p.m. CHP received following anonymous dispatch:  “Showing southbound Highway 1 at mile marker 88, Silver Ford  150 pickup. Plate of 8–David–94925. Ran the RP off the roadway  and was last seen approximately five [minutes] ago.” CHP  stopped vehicle at 4:05 p.m. 30 pounds of marijuana discovered.  Also deserving attention here is Navarette v. California, where  the central issue in the case was whether the traffic stop had  been made upon sufficient evidence to pass Fourth Amendment  muster. The probable-cause vs. reasonable-suspicion issue was  not raised by any party nor specifically discussed by any  member of the Court. However, the majority opinion  commenced its discussion with this assertion: “The Fourth  Amendment permits brief investigative stops—such as the  traffic stop in this case—when a law enforcement officer has ‘a  particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular  person stopped of criminal activity.’” It should be noted,  however, that “the traffic stop in this case” was made on  suspicion of driving under the influence, where, as the majority  emphasized, requiring the police to forego a stop until  additional evidence was acquired “would be particularly  inappropriate … because allowing a drunk driver a second  chance for dangerous conduct could have disastrous consequences.” It is thus fair to conclude that Navarette hardly  settles the basis-for-seizure question for lesser traffic violations.

11.

12.

13. Example:

CALLER: This guy is out here beating up his girlfriend. He’s  about to kill her. He also has a gun.
CALLER: It’s on Grove and, and, and like Williams Street. DISPATCHER: What is he wearing?  |
CALLER: He’s wearing a red hat, with braids and he’s beating  her up really bad right now I wanna break—I wanna break it up  but, I don’t wanna do nothing.
DISPATCHER: No—you don’t want to do that. Stay—hold on a  second, ma’am. Caller then hung-up.

14.

15.

Module Four: Dealing with Homes

1. Legal Rule: Under community caretaking, you can stop a  vehicle if you have a legitimate reason to believe an occupant  needs assistance or is a danger to others.

2. Legal Rule: Under emergency aid, you can enter a home if  there’s legitimate exigency an occupant needs assistance or is  a danger to others.

3. Supreme Court: It is clear that police “may enter a dwelling  without a warrant to render emergency aid and assistance to a  person they reasonably believe to be in distress and in need of  that assistance.”

4. D.C. Circuit Court: [A] warrant is not required to break down a  door to enter a burning home to rescue occupants or extinguish  a fire, to prevent a shooting or to bring emergency aid to an  injured person. The need to protect or preserve life or avoid  serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal  absent an exigency or emergency.

5. Case Sample: Police received an anonymous tip of a domestic  and shots fired at a trailer park. Cops interviewed “hysterical”  female outside that said nothing was wrong, no battery  occurred, and no signs of battery observed, and husband was  present. (State v. Bookheimer) Held: No corroboration that  anonymous tip was accurate and warrantless entry into home  unlawful.

6. Case Sample: Police received anonymous tip that suspect just  posted FB pic of him pointing gun at girl’s head in apt. After no  answer cops got key, entered, and found gun in plain view.  Synopsis: Appellant, Boris Bonilla, was indicted in the Circuit  Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, and charged with  possession of a regulated firearm after a felony conviction and  possession of a firearm after a drug-related conviction. After his  motion to suppress was denied, appellant was tried and  convicted by a jury of possession of a regulated firearm after a  disqualifying conviction. Appellant was sentenced to a  mandatory term of five years without possibility of parole. On  appeal, appellant originally asked us to resolve the following  questions:

• a) Did the motions court err in ruling that Mr. Bonilla did not  have standing to challenge the warrantless entry or search  of an apartment where he was an overnight guest?
• b) Did the motions court err in ruling that the police were  justified in making a warrantless entry into an apartment  pursuant to the community caretaking exception to the  warrant clause?

Held By MD Court of Special Appeals: They knocked. Nobody  answered. They knocked again…nobody answered. And at that  point, they didn’t kick the door in. They didn’t throw in a flash  grenade. They didn’t send in the SWAT unit. They asked the  manager for the key…and they went in to see if she was okay because it was 1:00 in the afternoon” and the incident occurred  at 3 in the morning. But I believe they had the right, and I think  frankly they had the obligation here, to see if she was okay. And  if they determined that she was okay and nothing else turned  up, they’ve got to leave.

Module Four: Takeaways 

1.