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 & Reasonable Suspicion Part 2

When does an anonymous tip provide enough reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to temporarily detain a suspect in a Terry stop?

The officer’s suspicion of criminal activity must be supported by specific facts (not a hunch) based on the totality of the circumstances. It doesn’t matter if a search of the suspect or her car revealed contraband. All that matters is what the officer knew before he detained the suspect.

An anonymous tip, without more, will not support a detention. The problem with anonymous tips is that there’s no way to tell if the caller is a concerned citizen reporting actual criminal activity or a vindictive ex-boyfriend or girlfriend of the suspect making a false report. The “more” that is required is usually some sort of corroboration of the information given in the anonymous report. Compare the following two cases.

In Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266 an anonymous caller told police that a young African-American male wearing a plaid shirt and standing at a particular bus stop was carrying a gun. Officers responded to the bus stop, saw an individual matching the description, frisked him, and found a gun. The suspect was charged with carrying a concealed firearm, but the evidence was suppressed because the detention was illegal. Note that there was no observation of suspicious activity by the officers once they arrived at the scene.

In Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325 the anonymous tip had what the courts call “predictive” information, an indication of inside knowledge. The tip was that a woman carrying cocaine would leave an apartment building at a specified time, get into a described car, and drive to a named motel. Based on this tip, the police observed the suspect, who left the apartment building at the identified time, got into the described car, and went to the identified motel. The detention was upheld.

The “more” can also be an exigent circumstance. Although the United States Supreme Court decision in Florida v. J.L. was unanimous, the opinion contained language that seemed to leave open the possibility of acting on an uncorroborated anonymous tip if the reported activity was an immediate threat to public safety, like a report of someone with a bomb.

The California Supreme Court appears to have used this language to carve out an exception for DUI stops based on anonymous tips. In People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078 an anonymous caller told a 911 operator that a driver was “weaving all over the road.” The caller described the car (a 1980’s model blue van), the location and the direction of travel. The officer observed the described vehicle and immediately made the stop. The driver was under the influence of cocaine, and an inventory search of the vehicle revealed syringes and heroin.

In upholding the stop, the majority in this 6-3 decision noted the accuracy of the description given by the caller of the car and the location, but also noted that drunk or erratic drivers are an inherent threat to public safety requiring prompt action. (“[A] drunk driver is not at all unlike a ‘bomb’, and a mobile one at that.”) The dissent criticized the majority for failing to point out that there was no other traffic on the road when this stop was made, at about 1:45 a.m., and for assuming, without evidence, that the caller had personal knowledge of the events.

The majority adopted the reasoning of a federal appellate case from the Eighth Circuit, U.S. v. Wheat (8th Circ. 2001) 278 F.3d 722. (This is a little odd, because the only federal decisions binding on state courts are those of the United States Supreme Court, and California is in the Ninth Circuit, not the Eighth. But we’ll let that pass.) Henceforth, in California, a DUI stop can be based on an anonymous tip provided that three requirements are met.

First, the tip must contain enough detail about the car and the location to establish that the car stopped is the one identified by the caller. Second, the caller’s information must be based on personal knowledge of a contemporaneous event. This shouldn’t be too hard, since almost everybody carries cell phones, and drunk drivers are often surrounded by other drivers who can call in the report. Third, at least the innocent details given by the anonymous caller, like the direction of travel, must be corroborated by the officer.

There are two ways to help make sure a detention based on an anonymous 911 call holds up in court. . The first is to bring coffee and donuts to the 911 operators and encourage them to ask anonymous callers if they personally observed the drunk driving or other criminal activity that they are reporting. The second, assuming you can do this consistent with public safety, is to observe the suspect until you see some indication of illegal activity, like speeding, weaving, or furtive movements, before making the stop.

Michele McKay McCoy is a veteran prosecutor who now teaches criminal law and related subjects.

  • 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
  • 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
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 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
  • 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