Yes, the police stop was legal. The 911 call was believable enough to give the officer a good reason (called 'reasonable suspicion') to stop the truck. The call was reliable because the caller saw the dangerous driving happen with her own eyes, she called right away, and using 911 makes a report more serious and less likely to be a prank. Also, running someone off the road is the kind of thing a drunk driver might do, which is an ongoing danger that police should investigate immediately.

No, the stop was illegal. An anonymous tip isn't trustworthy just because it correctly describes a car's location. The police had no idea if the caller was telling the truth about being run off the road. Most importantly, the officer followed the truck for five whole minutes and saw the driver do absolutely nothing wrong. This perfect driving should have made the officer realize the tip was probably false, and he should have left the truck alone.

Yes, the stop was okay. The police had a good reason to think the truck driver might be drunk based on the 911 call. The call gave enough details to trust it, like saying the caller saw the dangerous driving themselves and using 911 which helps prevent fake calls. The police don't need to be absolutely sure of a crime, and they don't need to see the bad driving themselves to pull someone over, especially if the tip suggests drunk driving.

No, the stop was not okay. The anonymous tip did not give police enough reason to think the driver was drunk, and the police didn't see any bad driving when they followed the truck for five minutes. Allowing police stops based on anonymous tips alone, without more proof, goes against our right to not be unreasonably searched and puts our freedom at risk.

Yes, an anonymous 911 call reporting a truck driving dangerously is enough reason for the police to pull the truck over. The police had a good reason to think the truck driver might be drunk based on the 911 call. The call gave enough details to trust it, like saying the caller saw the dangerous driving themselves and using 911 which helps prevent fake calls. The police don't need to be absolutely sure of a crime, and they don't need to see the bad driving themselves to pull someone over, especially if the tip suggests drunk driving.

No, an anonymous 911 call reporting a truck driving dangerously is not enough reason for the police to pull the truck over. The anonymous tip did not give police enough reason to think the driver was drunk, and the police didn't see any bad driving when they followed the truck for five minutes. Allowing police stops based on anonymous tips alone, without more proof, goes against our right to not be unreasonably searched and puts our freedom at risk.

—and whether the officer had "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity."

Although a mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause

More recently, the US Supreme Court has stated that, "under appropriate circumstances, an anonymous tip can demonstrate sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make [an] investigatory stop."

"The `reasonable suspicion'to justify such a stop `is dependent upon both the content of the information possessed by police and its degree of reliability.'"

A 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracing callers, and thus provide some safeguards against making false reports with immunity

However, for investigative stops, the Fourth Amendment only requires that a police officer have reasonable suspicion, a standard "obviously less" than probable cause.

As to the use of the 911 system, the Court noted that tips in 911 calls are not per se reliable, but because "a reasonable officer could think that a false tipster would think twice before using such a system," a caller's use of the 911 system is "one of the relevant circumstances that, taken together, justified the officer's reliance on the information reported in the 911 call."

"The [reasonable suspicion] standard takes into account `the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.'"

The Supreme Court has "consistently recognized that reasonable suspicion `need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct

Yes, the anonymous 911 call provided sufficient indicia of reliability to create reasonable suspicion for the stop. Under the totality of the circumstances, the tip was reliable for several reasons. First, the caller claimed eyewitness knowledge of dangerous driving, which carries more weight than a conclusory allegation. Second, the timeline of events suggests the call was a contemporaneous report made soon after the startling event, making it more trustworthy, akin to the hearsay exceptions for present sense impressions or excited utterances. Third, the use of the 911 system itself adds a degree of reliability, as such calls can be recorded and traced, deterring false reports. Finally, the specific conduct reported—running another vehicle off the road—is a strong indicator of drunk driving, an ongoing crime that justified an immediate investigative stop.

No, the anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the stop. Corroborating the truck's location and description does not corroborate the allegation of criminal wrongdoing, as any observer could provide those innocent details. The majority's reliance on hearsay exceptions is misplaced, as the caller had ample time to fabricate the story. More importantly, the allegation of a single instance of erratic driving does not automatically create a reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime like drunk driving. Critically, any initial suspicion should have been dispelled when the officer followed the truck for five minutes and observed perfectly lawful driving, which affirmatively undermined the tip's credibility.

Yes. 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. The Court emphasized that reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold than probable cause and does not require ruling out the possibility of innocent conduct. The anonymous tip was sufficiently reliable because it alleged eyewitness knowledge of the truck's dangerous driving, was contemporaneous with the observed criminal activity, and used the 911 system which has some safeguards against false reports. The tip created reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime of drunk driving, even though the officer did not personally observe suspicious driving, because the dangerous behaviors reported were indicative of drunk driving.

No. The anonymous tip did not provide the police with reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle because it did not reliably indicate that the driver was intoxicated and the subsequent police observation did not reveal any suspicious behavior. The dissent argued that the majority's decision erodes the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing stops based on anonymous tips without adequate indicia of reliability. The tip did not necessarily allege ongoing drunk driving, and the officers' observation of the truck for five minutes without any traffic violations undermined the tip's reliability. Allowing stops based on bare-bones anonymous tips of traffic violations poses a threat to individual liberty.

Yes. An anonymous 911 call reporting reckless driving provides reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. 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. The Court emphasized that reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold than probable cause and does not require ruling out the possibility of innocent conduct. The anonymous tip was sufficiently reliable because it alleged eyewitness knowledge of the truck's dangerous driving, was contemporaneous with the observed criminal activity, and used the 911 system which has some safeguards against false reports. The tip created reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime of drunk driving, even though the officer did not personally observe suspicious driving, because the dangerous behaviors reported were indicative of drunk driving.

No. The anonymous tip did not provide the police with reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle because it did not reliably indicate that the driver was intoxicated, and the subsequent police observation did not reveal any suspicious behavior. This decision erodes the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing stops based on anonymous tips without adequate indicia of reliability. The tip did not necessarily allege ongoing drunk driving, and the officers' observation of the truck for five minutes without any traffic violations undermines the tip's reliability. Allowing stops based on bare-bones anonymous tips of traffic violations poses a threat to individual liberty.

Navarette v. California

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot