Jackson v. Commonwealth
267 Va. 666, 2004 Va. LEXIS 74, 594 S.E.2d 595 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An anonymous tip, even if partially corroborated by easily observable facts, does not provide reasonable articulable suspicion for an investigatory traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment unless it demonstrates the informant's veracity and basis of knowledge, typically through predictive information about a suspect's future behavior.
Facts:
- At approximately 2:10 a.m. on June 17, 2001, Officer M. A. Cook received a dispatch based on an anonymous caller's report stating that 'three black males in a white Honda that were disorderly and one of the subjects brandished a firearm' at 34th Street and Jefferson Avenue.
- Approximately five minutes later, Officer Cook observed a white Honda automobile occupied by three black males leaving a gasoline station situated near the specified intersection.
- Officer Cook executed a U-turn, followed the Honda, and after other police units arrived, initiated a traffic stop, with Jerald Lorenzo Jackson present as the front passenger.
- Officer Cook acknowledged that the driver of the Honda was not violating any traffic laws and that the stop was based solely on the anonymous dispatch, without any additional information.
- During the stop, Sergeant James Hogan observed a significant bulge under Jackson's shirt, above his waistband, which appeared to be a firearm, and Jackson was uncooperative with requests to move his hands and lift his shirt.
- Due to Jackson’s uncooperativeness, Sergeant Hogan drew his firearm and directed Jackson to exit the vehicle, whereupon Officer Brendan D. Bartley removed a firearm from Jackson's waistband.
- During a subsequent search incident to arrest, Officer Bartley found four individually wrapped 'rocks of cocaine' in Jackson's left pants pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerald Lorenzo Jackson was indicted in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News for possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled substance, and charged with misdemeanor possession of a concealed weapon.
- Jackson filed a pretrial motion in the Circuit Court to suppress the evidence (firearm and cocaine), arguing the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion for the investigative traffic stop.
- The Circuit Court denied Jackson's suppression motion and subsequently convicted him of the charged offenses.
- Jackson appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment.
- Upon granting Jackson’s petition for a rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the convictions.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia awarded Jackson this appeal, limited to the question of whether the circuit court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an anonymous tip reporting a current, open criminal act involving a firearm, corroborated only by readily observable details about the suspect's vehicle, location, and occupants, provide reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cynthia D. Kinser
No, an anonymous tip describing a current, open criminal act involving a firearm, corroborated only by readily observable details about the suspect's vehicle and location, does not provide reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. The Court concluded that the anonymous tip in this case lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to establish reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. The opinion reiterated that the 'totality of the circumstances' test, including the 'quantity and quality' of information, and the informant's veracity/reliability and basis of knowledge (as per Alabama v. White and Illinois v. Gates), must be considered. The Court found the facts of the case 'congruent' with Florida v. J. L., where an anonymous tip was deemed unreliable because the informant was unknown, unaccountable, and provided no predictive information. Here, the tipster offered no explanation of how they knew about the firearm or any basis for believing they had 'inside knowledge' about Jackson, and the police did not observe any suspicious behavior. Unlike Adams v. Williams, the informant was not known to the police nor did they place their credibility at risk. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' attempts to distinguish the case from J. L. First, there was no evidence to support the claim that the informant was a 'concerned citizen making an eyewitness report'; the informant provided no self-identifying information or descriptive facts showing personal observation. Second, the Supreme Court in J. L. explicitly stated that a report of illegal conduct, whether concealed or open, does not justify a stop without meeting the reliability requirement. Third, the Supreme Court in J. L. declined to create an automatic 'firearm exception' to established reliability requirements, noting it could lead to harassment through false anonymous calls, distinguishing it from situations involving immediate public danger like a bomb or a drunk driver. The police observations only corroborated 'easily obtained facts and conditions existing at the time of the tip' (vehicle description, location, number/race/gender of occupants), which anyone could know. Crucially, the tip failed to provide 'predictive information' about Jackson's future behavior that would demonstrate the informant's 'inside information,' which was vital to the reliability finding in White. The subsequent discovery of a gun did not retroactively validate an unconstitutional stop. Therefore, the investigatory stop was illegal, and the seized evidence should have been suppressed.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents regarding the high bar for establishing reasonable suspicion based on anonymous tips for Fourth Amendment investigatory stops. By aligning with Florida v. J. L., the ruling emphasizes that corroboration of readily observable, non-predictive details is insufficient; rather, the tip must demonstrate the informant's veracity and a reliable basis of knowledge, often through predictive information about a suspect's future actions that indicates 'inside information.' The decision explicitly rejects creating a broad 'firearm exception,' thereby preventing the potential for abuse where any anonymous, unverified tip alleging a firearm could lead to an intrusive search. This protects individual liberties against arbitrary police action based on unsubstantiated allegations and provides critical guidance to law enforcement on the constitutional limits of acting on anonymous information.
