State v. Shepherd
470 So.2d 608 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest or search, based on a confidential informant's tip, is determined by a 'totality of the circumstances' analysis, where independent police corroboration of the informant's detailed predictions of a suspect's future movements, even if those movements are innocent, can sufficiently establish the informant's veracity and basis of knowledge.
Facts:
- On February 23, 1984, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Lt. Samuel A. Pruit of the Baton Rouge City Police Department received a telephone call from a confidential informant (CI).
- The CI, who had provided reliable information in 'numerous other cases' over a three-year period, informed Lt. Pruit that Janice Shepherd would shortly leave her home on Scenic Highway, drive to her mother's home on Washington Avenue to pick up 'thirty sets of T's and Blues' (pentazocine and pyribenzamine), and then deliver the drugs to an address in South Baton Rouge, exiting the interstate on Washington Street.
- Lt. Pruit contacted Detectives Tully Vincent and David Whatley, who proceeded to Shepherd's home and observed her leaving the residence at 1821 Scenic Highway in a maroon and cream 1977 Lincoln Continental, accompanied by two small children.
- The detectives followed Shepherd to her mother Martha White's house on Washington Avenue, where Shepherd entered and remained inside for approximately ten minutes.
- Shepherd and her children then left Martha White's house, drove to Interstate I-10, and traveled southbound.
- Police units stopped Shepherd on the Washington Street exit ramp in South Baton Rouge, where she and her children were ordered and secured from the vehicle.
- Detective Whatley then searched the front seat of Shepherd's vehicle, removing a piece of aluminum foil and a rolled-up napkin which contained controlled dangerous substances; Shepherd did not consent to the search, and the drugs were not visible without searching the vehicle.
- Detective Whatley was not called to testify at the suppression hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- Janice Shepherd was charged in a bill of information with one count of possession with intent to distribute pentazocine and one count of possession with intent to distribute phenmetrazine.
- Shepherd filed a motion to suppress the drugs, arguing they were unlawfully seized without a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances.
- The district court (trial court) denied Shepherd's motion to suppress.
- Shepherd subsequently pled guilty to the first count (possession with intent to distribute pentazocine), reserving her right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress pursuant to State v. Crosby.
- The State dismissed the second count of the information and another bill of information against Shepherd.
- Shepherd was sentenced to four years at hard labor in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
- Shepherd appealed the denial of her motion to suppress to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
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 a confidential informant's tip, corroborated by police surveillance of a suspect's predicted 'innocent' movements and a history of the informant's reliability, establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest and search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - LANIER, J.
Yes, the confidential informant's tip, corroborated by police surveillance of Janice Shepherd's predicted movements and the informant's history of reliability, established probable cause for the warrantless arrest and search of Shepherd's vehicle. The court applied the 'totality of the circumstances' analysis from Illinois v. Gates, noting that this approach considers the informant's veracity, basis of knowledge, and corroboration of information. The present case is factually similar to Draper v. United States and Illinois v. Gates because the informant accurately predicted future actions of the suspect, which were then corroborated by police surveillance. Specifically, the CI predicted Shepherd's detailed travel plans: leaving her home, going to her mother's home to pick up drugs, leaving her mother's home, getting on the Interstate, and exiting on Washington Street for delivery. The court found that the corroboration of these predicted 'innocent' behaviors provided a 'reasonable basis to believe the CI's unverified allegation of drug possession is also true,' as it indicated a 'fair probability' that the CI's basis of knowledge was either Shepherd herself or someone she trusted. The court distinguished this case from State v. Ruffin and State v. Raheem, where corroboration was limited to the suspect's presence at a location and lacked predictive details of future actions. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the CI's three-year history of providing reliable information strengthened the finding of probable cause. Since probable cause to arrest Shepherd existed, the subsequent search of her vehicle was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest under New York v. Belton or under the automobile exception, for which exigent circumstances were not contested on appeal.
Analysis:
This case affirms and clarifies the application of the 'totality of the circumstances' test from Illinois v. Gates in the context of probable cause derived from confidential informants. It distinguishes between mere corroboration of a suspect's static location and corroboration of specific, predictive details of future conduct. The decision highlights that even 'innocent' observed activity can become suspicious and contribute to probable cause when viewed in light of a detailed and accurately predicted informant's tip, especially from a proven reliable informant. This ruling provides crucial guidance for law enforcement on how to establish probable cause in dynamic situations where immediate action is required and obtaining a warrant is impractical, while still upholding Fourth Amendment standards for reasonableness in searches and seizures. It underscores the importance of police corroboration of predictive details to bolster the credibility of informant information.
