In Navarette v. California, the Supreme Court held that police are justified in relying on an anonymous 911 call where the call is (i) made by an eyewitness, (ii) nearly contemporaneous with the event, and (iii) recorded and traced by the 911 system. 572 U.S. 393, 398-401, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014). The 911 call in this case had all these features.

Significantly, each caller’s tip adds to the reliability of the tip(s) of the other caller(s). See State v. Hillary, 2017 WI App 67, ¶18, 378 Wis. 2d 267, 903 N.W.2d 311.The lack of corroboration isn’t fatal, either, given Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014):¶12 Coker contends it “weigh[s] against the veracity of the caller” that the trooper himself did not observe any erratic driving or traffic violations in the “just under” one minute he followed her before conducting the traffic stop. The Supreme Court addressed a similar consideration in Navarette.

Third, the tipster had just witnessed the alleged criminal activity. See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 400 (2014) (observing that a statement ‘made under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event … weigh[s] in favor of the [tipster’s] veracity’). [¶] The fact that Torres was in a high-crime area also favors reliability.

“Other suggested explanations by defendant, such as that defendant may have been worried about the high crime nature of the area, while possible, do not rule out the plausible explanation supported by the totality of the circumstances. See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 403, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014) (“[R]easonable suspicion need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.”) (quotations omitted).” United States v. Branch, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205474 (E.D. N.C. Nov. 26, 2019).

The officer could rely on the anonymous tip because it had indicia of reliability: The caller used the 911 system, which generally has “some features that allow for identifying and tracing callers” such that “a false tipster would think twice before using the system.” Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1689-90 (2014). Indeed, the 911 report disclosed both the phone number and a nearby address of the 911 caller, which could be used to identify the caller.

People v. Mansapit, 2016 Guam 30, 2016 Guam LEXIS 28 (Oct. 24, 2016): [*15] The tipster reported firsthand observations of an ongoing event, adding weight to a finding of reasonable suspicion. See Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1688-89, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014); see also United States v. Edwards, 761 F.3d 977, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding reasonable suspicion for caller’s ongoing account of suspect shooting at cars). However, a tip must reliably assert an illegal act, and not just reliably identify a certain individual without details on criminal conduct.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that under the totality of the circumstances test, all facts may be considered by the court in reviewing the officer’s basis for stopping a vehicle. The Court also noted that the officer was entitled to make an assessment of the situation in light of his specialized training and familiarity with the customs of the area’s inhabitants.Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014)A 911 caller who did not identify herself, told the dispatcher that a specific vehicle had just run her off the road. The police went to the highway and saw the described vehicle, followed it for a few minutes (observing no traffic infractions) and then stopped the vehicle.

The Supreme Court disagreed. For the same reason that a reasonable mistake of fact does not render a detention unreasonable, a detention prompted by a reasonable mistake of law is also not an unreasonable detention.Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014)A 911 caller who did not identify herself, told the dispatcher that a specific vehicle had just run her off the road. The police went to the highway and saw the described vehicle, followed it for a few minutes (observing no traffic infractions) and then stopped the vehicle.

And he wrote the pro-defense dissent in a 5-4 case in which the majority made it easier for police to use anonymous tips to support Terry stops on vehicles. Navarette v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014).But the reason both Rehnquist and Scalia can generally be called conservative is that their views in this area reflect two different sides of conservative legal philosophy. Damon Root has provided a concise overview in his new book, “Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court.”One of the fundamental American constitutional dilemmas is determining when the rights of an individual should trump a decision of the majority.

Issue: Did the anonymous tip provide reasonable suspicion necessary for a lawful stop?Holding: Yes. Relying on Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014), the DCCA found that the 911 call bore sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the stop. The Court found that the contemporaneousness of the report and the fact that the caller used the 911 emergency system weighed in favor of the tip’s reliability.