State v. Simpson
968 S.W. 2d 776, 1998 WL 70389, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An informant's tip can establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop if it exhibits sufficient indicia of reliability under the totality of the circumstances, which can be satisfied by police corroboration of the informant's predictive details, even if those details concern innocent activity.
Facts:
- A confidential informant called Officer Rodney Weaver of the McNairy County Sheriff’s Department.
- The informant stated that Grapel Simpson and Jimmy Brumley were transporting 100 dilaudid pills from Memphis to McNairy County.
- The informant specified they were traveling on Highway 64 in a two-door, cream or beige colored Oldsmobile and would arrive in Selmer 'any minute.'
- Sheriff Paul Ervin went to Highway 64 and observed a vehicle matching the description, occupied by Simpson and Brumley, approaching from the west.
- Based on the tip and this observation, Sheriff Ervin initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle.
- During the stop, Simpson and Brumley provided inconsistent stories about the purpose of their trip to Memphis.
- Simpson verbally consented to a search of her person by a female dispatcher, Ruth Travis, who was called to the scene.
- During the search, Simpson informed Travis that there were drugs in her coat pocket, where 100 dilaudid pills were subsequently discovered.
Procedural Posture:
- Grapel Simpson filed a motion to suppress evidence in the McNairy County trial court.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the stop was supported by sufficient cause.
- Simpson entered a guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion as a certified question of law.
- Simpson, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- Simpson, as appellant, was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
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 independent police work confirming non-criminal details, exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop of a vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, J.
Yes, the confidential informant's tip provided the necessary reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court held that while reasonable suspicion requires specific and articulable facts, it is a less demanding standard than probable cause and can be established with information that is less reliable. The tip satisfied Tennessee's two-pronged test from State v. Jacumin, which requires showing the informant's credibility and their basis of knowledge. The credibility prong was satisfied by the officer's prior contact with the informant and, more importantly, by the police's independent corroboration of several predictive details (vehicle description, location, occupants, and imminent arrival). The basis of knowledge prong was satisfied by the timely nature of the report ('any minute'), which implied the informant had eyewitness knowledge. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the corroborated tip provided more than a mere hunch and constituted a minimal level of objective justification for the stop.
Dissenting - Reid, J.
No, the investigatory stop violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissent argued that prior precedent in State v. Pulley required an 'immediate threat of danger' to justify a stop based on a tip, a factor not present here. Even without that requirement, the tip failed the Jacumin test. The informant's credibility was not established, as the officer gave only a conclusory statement about a 'preexisting relationship,' and the informant was a convicted felon. Furthermore, the police corroboration was of purely innocent details (a common car on a public highway) that did not demonstrate any 'inside information' or predictive insight into criminal activity, unlike the standard set in Alabama v. White. The basis of knowledge was also lacking, as there was no evidence the informant was an eyewitness to the alleged drug possession, only to the legal act of driving. Therefore, the stop was based on the 'uncorroborated snitch of a convicted felon' and was unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Tennessee's two-pronged reliability test (credibility and basis of knowledge) to the lower standard of reasonable suspicion for investigatory stops. The decision confirms that deficiencies in an informant's demonstrated reliability can be overcome by police corroboration of predictive details, even if those details are not, in themselves, illegal. This gives law enforcement greater latitude to act on tips from confidential informants, lowering the threshold needed to initiate a 'Terry' stop compared to what is required for a search warrant or arrest. The ruling reinforces the principle that the 'totality of the circumstances' is the ultimate touchstone for reasonable suspicion.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Simpson