Navarette v. California 134 S.Ct.
1683 police can stop car based on 911
call
A California Highway Patrol officer
stopped the pickup truck occupied by petitioners because it matched the
description of a vehicle that a 911 caller had recently reported as having run
her off the road. As he and a second officer approached the truck, they smelled
marijuana. They searched the truck’s bed, found 30 pounds of marijuana, and
arrested petitioners. Petitioners moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that
the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment. Their motion was denied, and they pleaded guilty to
transporting marijuana. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding
that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.
Held: The traffic stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer
had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated.
(a) The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops when an officer has “a
particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped
of . . . criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411–418. Reasonable suspicion takes into account “the totality of
the circumstances,” id., at 417, and depends “upon both the content of
information possessed by police and its degree of reliability,” Alabama
v. White, 496 U. S. 325. An anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates sufficient
reliability, White, 496 U. S., at 329, but may do so under
appropriate circumstances, id., at 327.
(b) The 911 call in this case
bore adequate indicia of reliability for the officer to credit the caller’s
account. By reporting that she had been run off the road by a specific vehicle,
the caller necessarily claimed an eyewitness basis of knowledge. The apparently
short time between the reported incident and the 911 call suggests that the
caller had little time to fabricate the report. And a reasonable officer could
conclude that a false tipster would think twice before using the 911 system,
which has several technological and regulatory features that safeguard against
making false reports with immunity.
(c) Not
only was the tip here reliable, but it also created reasonable suspicion of
drunk driving. Running another car off the road suggests the sort of impairment
that characterizes drunk driving. While that conduct might be explained by
another cause such as driver distraction, reasonable suspicion “need not rule
out the possibility of innocent conduct.” United States v. Arvizu,
534 U. S. 266. Finally, the officer’s failure to observe additional
suspicious conduct during the short period that he followed the truck did not
dispel the reasonable suspicion of drunk driving, and the officer was not
required to surveil the truck for a longer period.
Wikipedia says
|
Navarette
v. California
|
Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips.[1] In 2008, police in California received a 911
call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers
spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed
the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless,
officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At
trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and
officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority
of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally
observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous
911 call.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a
"scathing" dissenting opinion, in which
he argued that the tip was unreliable, and that the majority's opinion
threatened the freedom and liberty of all citizens.[2] Likewise, many commentators have noted Navarette
represented a departure from earlier precedent, and that the opinion opened the
door for expansive new police powers.[3] Some commentators have also noted that the case leaves open several
important questions, including the unanswered question of whether anonymous
reports of extremely dangerous behavior require fewer indicia of reliability
before police may act upon those reports.[4] Other scholars have argued it was highly unlikely that Lorenzo and Jose
Prado Navarette were actually driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
when they were stopped by police.[5]
