Tag Archives: search and seizure

Fourth Amendment Searches: Reasonable Suspicion and Anonymous 911 Calls

Published By Stephen Preziosi

Anonymous Tip Sufficient Indicium of Reliability for Reasonable Suspicion

United States of America v. Ibrahim McCants

No. 17-3103

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 5th, 2019

Federal Appeals Lawyer

Federal Appeals in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Federal Appeals Lawyer in Philadelphia

ISSUE:

Whether an anonymous 911 tip describing a man wearing a red hat with braids beating up a woman and maybe had a gun, provides a sufficient indica of reliability for reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity allowing the police to conduct a search of a man wearing a red hat and braids in the neighborhood.  

HOLDING:

The Court held that the police may conduct brief investigatory stops under Terry v. Ohio,  392 U.S. 1 (1968) if they have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.  Such reasonable suspicion requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop and more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch or criminal activity.

A caller’s anonymous tip bore sufficient indicia of reliability for the Fourth Amendment’s reasonable suspicion because it provided information helpful to investigations.  The Court has identified five factors that indicate reliability for anonymous tips and they are not all required to deem an anonymous tip reliable.  

Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer through the United States

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In June of 2015, a woman called 911 to report an ongoing domestic dispute she had been witnessing first hand.  During her call, she described a physical fight between the defendant, Ibrahim McCants, and his girlfriend, stating that he was beating her up really bad, he was wearing a red hat and had braids, and it looked like he had a gun.  She described his appearance, which perfectly matched when the police arrived and engaged with McCants.  They initiated a Terry stop and frisked him because of the nature of the call for service.  During the pat down, they found a loaded handgun and distributable amounts of heroine.  McCants was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute heroin, and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. 

Federal Appeals Lawyer in Pennsylvania

COURT’S ANAYLSIS:

The Court held that a caller’s anonymous tip bore sufficient indicia of reliability for the Fourth Amendment’s reasonable suspicion.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.  Searches require warrants supported by probable cause however, an officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) if they have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.  Reasonable articulable suspicion requires at least a minimum level of objective justification for making the stop and more than an undeveloped and unparticularized suspicion or hunch of criminal activity.  Anonymous tips can provide information helpful to investigations and can create reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity.  The Court has identified five factors that indicate reliability for anonymous tips:

(1) The tip information was relayed from the informant to the officer in a face-to-face interaction such that the officer had an opportunity to appraise the witness’s credibility through observation.

(2) The person providing the tip can be held responsible if her allegations turn out to be fabricated.

(3) The content of the tip is not information that would be available to any observer. 

(4) The person providing the information has recently witnessed the alleged criminal activity.

(5) The tip predicts what will follow, as this provides police the means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility.

Federal Appeals Lawyer in New Jersey

While the 911 call here did not present all of the reliability factors, this deficiency does not preclude a finding of reasonable suspicion because a tip does not need to bare all of the indicia, nor any particular indicium, to supply reasonable suspicion.  The tip was sufficiently reliable because it met two of the factors: the informant witnessed the alleged criminal and can be held

responsible if the allegations turn out to be fabricated. 

In this case, the caller’s anonymous 911 tip bore sufficient indicia of reliability because the called used the 911 system to report firsthand knowledge of ongoing domestic violence, and the informant gave an accurate description that was quickly confirmed by the police.  This case differs from Florida v J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), which determined that a bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who did not explain the bases for their tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. 

Federal Appeals Lawyer in Delaware

Here, the 911 caller gave a firsthand account of ongoing criminal activity, as well as a highly specific and accurate description of the suspect’s location, clothing and hair.  In Navarette, 572 U.S. 399 – 401,the Court determined that an eyewitness’s firsthand knowledge of ongoing criminality lends significant support to the tip’s reliability and a 911 call bolsters the tip’s credibility because the system is able to identify callers therefore safeguarding against false reports. 

government breached plea agreement

Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure: The Origin of the “Terry Stop” – Temporary Stops and Searches

Published By Stephen Preziosi

Terry v. Ohio

88 S.Ct. 1868

U.S. Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1968

More information on Federal Appeals and Petitions to the United States Supreme Court 

Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure: The Origin of the “Terry Stop” – Temporary Stops and Searches

This week’s Throw-Back-Thursday blog is the case that established the infamous Terry Stop where police were authorized to stop and frisk a suspect when the police believe that there is reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and the person may be armed.  This case eventually would lead to the recent controversy of “stop and frisk” in many State jurisdictions.

Issue: Whether a police officer’s “stop and frisk” of an individual violates of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Holding: The Supreme Court held that when an officer acts “reasonably” in performing a search and seizure, even without probable cause, the search and seizure is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment when the if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.

The Stop and Frisk and Arrests of Terry and Chilton

A detective patrolling downtown Cleveland spotted two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, on a street corner and suspected that something was amiss based on the behavior of the men. The detective observed Terry and Chilton repeatedly walking back in forth on the same street, pausing to look into the same store window each time they passed by. Suspecting that the men were about to perform a “stick up,” the detective approached Terry and Chilton along with a third man who had met them named Katz, identified himself as an officer, and proceeded to pat down Terry. The detective felt a revolver on Terry’s person and, after leading the three men inside the store, he ordered Terry to remove his coat so he could retrieve the weapon. The officer went on to perform a complete pat down of Terry, Chilton, and Katz. Another revolver was discovered on Chilton’s person and Terry and Chilton were subsequently charged with carrying concealed weapons.

Fourth Amendment Issue at Trial

The defense counsel of Terry and Chilton moved to suppress the weapons as evidence, arguing that the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. The court denied the motion and admitted the revolvers into evidence on the grounds that the detective had reason to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously and that because the officer had reason to believe the men might be armed, he was allowed to frisk them for his own safety. After the trial court denied the motion to suppress, Terry and Chilton pled guilty.

When is a Search or Seizure “Reasonable”?

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Fourth Amendment provides that citizens have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures by police. While the Court conceded that petitioner Terry was generally entitled to protection under the Fourth Amendment as he walked the streets, the Court questioned whether, under the circumstances as described by the arresting officer, the search and seizure was unreasonable. How, then, the Court questioned, do we know when a search or seizure is reasonable and when a search or seizure violates an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights?

When an intrusion occurs without a warrant, courts look to the testimony of the arresting officer to see whether the actions taken were justified and whether the officer’s specific, articulated accounts “taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.” The Court urged lower courts to ask these questions and to require evidence of reasonableness that is based on more than just a “hunch”— evidence that the officer acted in “good faith” would not be enough. The Court held that if mere “good faith” requirement were all that was necessary to determine that the search and seizure was legal, “the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate.”

Was Terry’s “Stop and Frisk” Reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?

After establishing that courts must assess the context and facts of a warrantless search or seizure, the Supreme Court was called to determine whether Terry’s “stop and frisk” was unreasonable and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court didn’t doubt that Terry was “seized” and subjected to a “search” when the detective patted him down for weapons on the outside of his clothing. However, the question remained: did the circumstances preceding the detective’s “stop and frisk” render his decision to perform the search and seizure reasonable according to the Court’s principles?

Following its own guidelines, the Court analyzed the facts of Terry’s case and concluded that the detective’s warrantless search and seizure was reasonable. The Court rationalized that because the detective’s observations of Terry and his two companions (pacing up and down the street, continuously stopping in front of the store, etc.) led him to believe Terry and his crew were about to execute a stick-up, the detective acted reasonably. Also noting that the detective initially limited his search to a pat down of the outside clothing, the Court concluded that his decision was a reasonable in order to protect himself and others from possible danger. Subsequently, the Court held that the weapon was properly admitted into evidence.

The Controversy that Followed

Since the decision of Terry v. Ohio, controversy over the constitutionality of “stop and frisk” searches has remained prevalent throughout the United States. In 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York axed the “stop and frisk” policy. That Court held that the “stop and frisk” rule violated the Fourth Amendment, noting that officers too often take advantage of the policy by unfairly target minorities.

 

 

 

Mapp v. Ohio: The Origin of The Exclusionary Rule In State Courts

Published By Stephen Preziosi

The “Throw Back Thursday” Blog: Examining classic cases that continue to be relevant.

 

In my first “Throw-Back-Thursday” blog issue, I take the reader back to the ultimate classic in criminal law, to what is probably the most earth-shattering opinion in criminal law decided in the twentieth century, which is still applicable and going strong in the criminal courts today throughout the United States.  If there is any one case that has had more influence and generated more change in the way criminal cases are handled in state courts throughout the United States, it must be Mapp v. Ohio.  I am sure that we are all familiar with the holding in general, but here is a refresher on the case in this week’s Throw-Back-Thursday Blog.

Read More →