We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Anonymous Tips and Reasonable Suspicion

In a recent case the California Supreme Court held that an anonymous call to 911 could provide enough reasonable suspicion to initiate a vehicle stop for driving under the influence, provided that the caller’s information was detailed enough to describe the erratic driving, the description of the car, and the location and direction of travel of the car (People v. Wells [2006] 38 Cal.4th 1078).

We now have a logical extension of that ruling, in People v. Dolly (2007) DJDAR 1443. In Dolly the anonymous caller described the suspect’s gender and apparent ethnicity and said the suspect had “just pulled a gun” on him and mentioned a gang name. The caller stated the suspect had a bandage on his left hand and was in the driver’s seat of a gray Nissan Maxima parked at a specific intersection.

The caller felt that the suspect “was gonna shoot me right there at that minute” but didn’t want to identify himself because “if they find out I’m snitching, they’re going to kill me around here.”

The caller called again four minutes later, gave his own first name as “Drew”, and corrected his description of the vehicle as black, not gray.

Within three minutes responding officers saw a black Nissan Maxima parked at the location given by the caller. They ordered the driver out of the car and face down on the pavement with his hands at his side. The driver was wearing a cast on his left hand. Two passengers (without casts) were ordered out of the vehicle as well.

A search of the vehicle revealed a loaded handgun under the front passenger seat. The defendant admitted ownership of the handgun. The actual charge was felon in possession of a firearm, not assault or attempted assault.

Please notice a couple of issues here. Ordering a driver face down on the pavement is a lot more intrusive than the ordinary vehicle stop authorized by Wells. On the other hand the information from the caller in this case clearly was based on personal observation of a very recent event. In Wells, personal observation was an assumption.

Also, this defendant had a strike prior conviction. Under the three strikes law, the prior convictions must be serious or violent, but the current offense can be any felony at all. This is why search and seizure law is more important than ever before; the stakes are higher.

The majority of the court upheld the anonymous tip as establishing reasonable suspicion for the detention, based on four reasons. First, the defendant’s conduct was an immediate threat to public safety.

Second, a 911 call is widely known to be recorded. The possibility that the caller’s voice could be recognized by the suspect reduces the possibility of a hoax. Further, 911 calls typically result in an immediate police response precisely because officers are expected to rely on the information given in 911 calls.

Third, the caller gave firsthand and contemporaneous information, including detailed descriptions of the suspect, the car, and the location, which could be confirmed by the police as soon as they arrived.

Fourth, the caller had a plausible reason for wishing to remain anonymous, namely “I don’t have anyone to defend me from all this gang shit.”

Three of the justices (Werdegar, Kennard and Moreno) agreed with the result but not the reasoning of the majority. They weren’t impressed with the “public safety” argument because they think it introduces a sort of sliding scale to search and seizure that would relax the rules for more serious crimes. They thought that there was enough corroboration of the anonymous caller’s information to justify the detention, apart from the nature of the crime.

Together, what Wells and Dolly teach is that officers should be aware of all the details given by the anonymous caller, respond as quickly as possible, and corroborate as much of the caller’s information as possible.

  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department