Based on Informants/Citizens
Category > Based on Informants/Citizens
Reports from informants of heavy foot traffic at defendant's house were insufficient to establish probable cause.An anonymous informant and an unidentified citizen informant supplied the officer with information of heavy foot traffic at defendant's residence. The anonymous informant concluded defendant was selling drugs and was involved in prostitution. This information, without further investigation, was insufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Moreover, no reasonably trained police officer could have believed otherwise.id: 10936
The uncorroborated anonymous tip was insufficient to justify the search and seizure.Police received an anonymous telephone tip which contained no internal indicia of the basis for or reliability of the informant's information. The tip did not include predictive information that could be corroborated by observation. The observed corroboration that a vehicle fitting the description was present at the described location did not corroborate the criminal element of the tip that the car contained a gun or drugs. The additional fact of an outstanding warrant did not corroborate the anonymous tip for it had no tendency to prove the current driver of the car possessed the gun or drugs. The four year-old warrant was not for defendant, who was the registered owner of the car, but for a person with another name. The anonymous tip was not sufficiently corroborated and did not justify the detention of defendant.id: 16972
Search warrant authorizing use of a thermal imaging device was not supported by probable cause where the officer did not establish the veracity or basis of knowledge of the anonymous informants, and simply corroborated defendant's residence and vehicles.Defendant obtained a warrant before using the thermal imaging device to scan defendant's residence. However, the search still violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The officer failed to directly establish the veracity or basis of knowledge of the anonymous informant, the informant's information as to the alleged criminal activity was not self-verifying, and the record did not suggest that such corroboration could not be obtained. The officer simply corroborated defendant's residence and vehicles. This was insufficient. Moreover, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. The officer was well trained and knew or should have known that the limited corroboration he undertook was insufficient and that the affidavit requesting the search warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.id: 17255
Drug use alone does not provide probable cause to search the user's residence.Probable cause to believe that a person uses illegal drugs does not automatically provide probable cause for a warrant to search the person's home for drugs. The trial court found to the contrary and denied the suppression motion. However, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied due to the lack of authority on point and the existence of potentially supportive precedent on the issue as it relates to drug dealers as opposed to drug users.id: 17035
Good faith exception to warrant requirement did not apply where the officer failed to corroborate information from the confidential informant.Officer's failure to corroborate the evidence he received from the anonymous informant did not meet the standard of objective reasonableness. The officer failed to directly establish the veracity or basis of knowledge of the anonymous informant, and the informant's information as to the alleged criminal activity was not self-verifying, and the record did not suggest there was no reason such corroboration could not be obtained. His corroboration of appellant's residence and vehicle were detailed, but unrelated to the bank robbery, and he admitted a six-inch height discrepancy in corroborating appellant's physical description.id: 10869
The trial court properly tested the reliability of the affidavits filed in support of the wiretap order under the totality of the circumstances.Defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by the wiretap because the court tested the reliability of the affidavits filed in support of the wiretap order under the totality of the circumstances test rather than the standard requiring particularized suspicion of informant tips. However, under the terms of the Wiretap Act, the court correctly applied the totality of the circumstances test.id: 25128
There was insufficient probable cause to support a warrant where the police corroboration of the informant’s statements and interlocking details related only to “pedestrian” facts. A search warrant affidavit contained information from three informants, none of whom were reliable. Each informant said two named individuals were selling drugs from a particular residence and drove a particular vehicle. The affiant officer corroborated these facts and determined one of the alleged drug dealers had a history of drug offenses, but he failed to include any details of the offenses in the affidavit. The affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause to issue the warrant, in part because the police corroboration of the informants’ statements and the “interlocking” details of those statements related to “pedestrian” facts. However, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied where the existence of probable cause was debatable.id: 22527
Anonymous tip from a caller regarding a late night disturbance involving a firearm in a gang area provided a reasonable basis to detain and search the minor. The minor argued there was insufficient evidence to support the detention and cursory search for weapons. The detention was based on information from an anonymous telephone call reporting a late night disturbance involving a firearm that occurred in front of a specific residence in a gang territory. Police knew this was a dangerous area and investigated a shooting at the same address days earlier. The anonymous phone report was sufficiently reliable to support the brief detention. Moreover, had the unarmed minor cooperated with the brief detention and pat down he would likely have been allowed to leave. It was his belligerent refusal to comply with the officer’s request that escalated the benign encounter into a physical confrontation. id: 20964
Police acted reasonably in detaining defendant after a 911 tip reporting an assault with a firearm and accurately describing the perpetrator, his car and its location.An anonymous 911 tip contemporaneously reporting an assault with a firearm and accurately describing the perpetrator, his vehicle and its location was necessary to protect public safety and
sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.id: 19431
The traffic stop was lawful where it was based solely on an allegation of erratic driving reported by an anonymous caller on a cellphone.The contents of a call to the police from an anonymous cell phone user gave a patrol officer reasonable cause to briefly stop the motorist's vehicle for purposes of investigating erratic driving. The quantity test for reliability was met because the caller gave the dispatcher the driver's gender, a description of the vehicle, its license number and approximate location. The quality test for reliability was met because the caller gave precise details of the driver's wrong-way driving and making a left turn into oncoming traffic. The caller also named the streets on which the violations occurred. The trial court erred in granting a writ of mandate setting aside the administrative suspension of the defendant's driver's license for drunk driving.id: 18572
Anonymous caller who was a victim, rather than a typical tipster, was not required to provide predictive behavior corroborating the illegality of the suspect's actions in order to establish probable cause.Defendant argued the court erred in denying his suppression motion because the uncorroborated 911 call was not a valid basis to search the car which was legally parked. The anonymous caller said the man in the car had threatened him with a gun. The caller was unable to provide predictive behavior corroborating the illegality of the suspect's actions. (Florida v. J.L. (2001) 529 U.S. 266). However, that was not required where the caller was the victim, rather than an informant tipster in the usual sense, and all that was necessary was that the caller tell police the man was still sitting in the car.id: 18523
CHP officer may pull over a vehicle for an investigatory stop based on a contemporaneous tip of erratic driving that accurately described a vehicle even though the officer did not witness any erratic driving.Defendant argued the CHP officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his van. The officer received an anonymous tip regarding a possible drunk driver due to his erratic driving. The officer then positioned his car on the side of the road and within minutes saw the distinctive van drive by, although the officer did not witness any erratic driving. Even though there were few details regarding the reckless driving tip, and this was a close case, the anonymous tip as corroborated was sufficiently reliable to justify the investigative stop of defendant's van.id: 18093
An anonymous tip did not have sufficient indicia of reliability to create reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.An anonymous telephone tip about an individual with a concealed handgun did not create a reasonable suspicion justifying a stop. That the tip was recorded and transcribed (reducing the possibility of police fabrication) did not sufficiently distinguish the case from the controlling opinion in Florida v. J. L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266.id: 18030
Temporary detention was justified where the police received an anonymous tip of drug activity and the police then saw the truck described by the caller as well as activity that resembled a drug deal.Police received an anonymous call informing them that someone was selling drugs from a ceratin location. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived at the place described and saw the truck which matched the caller's description along with conduct by two people that resembled a drug purchase. While an anonymous call, without more, will not justify a detention, a call coupled with sufficient corroboration of the information provided, will justify a detention. The corroboration in the present case was sufficient to justify the detention.id: 17517
Informant's name need not be disclosed in the affidavit for the status of citizen informant to attach.The confidential informant's identity was disclosed to the police who found the informant had no prior criminal record and confirmed the informant's expertise in identifying cocaine. The informant was clearly a witness to the crime of possession of cocaine. It was not necessary that the informant's name be disclosed in the affidavit for the status of the citizen informant and its attendant presumption of reliability to attach. Moreover, the informant's ability to recognize cocaine did not suggest, let alone establish as a matter of law, the informant was criminally involved and thus motivated by something other than good citizenship.id: 10932
Information from an informant who admitted criminal activity which was corroborated by citizen informants established probable cause for the warrant.Confidential informant who admitted criminal activity stated that defendant had been selling LSD from his automobile. Details of this information were corroborated by two informants who were motivated by good citizenship. These reports were then confirmed by two more citizens who supplied additional information as to where defendant might maintain his supply. The information provided probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.id: 10933
Information from the reliable informant that defendant was delivering drugs to the residence coupled with defendant's arrival at the residence provided probable cause to arrest and search.While executing a search warrant at a residence, officers received information from a confidential reliable informant that a man driving a red pickup truck would be delivering narcotics to the address they were searching. The red truck then approached and the driver (defendant) fit the informant's description. As he approached the house the officer identified himself and as defendant backed away the officer lunged at defendant and handcuffed him. Officer then performed a pat search and discovered a container of narcotics. Defendant argued the encounter was not a detention but an arrest without probable cause. The court agreed the encounter was an arrest but found there was probable cause to believe defendant had narcotics on his person.id: 10934
Officer had probable cause to arrest defendant who matched the description given by an identified informant who saw someone selling drugs truck to truck at a truck stop.Defendant matched the description provided by an informant who identified himself when he reported someone was walking truck to truck trying to sell drugs at the Unocal 76 station. The officers had no reason to question the reliability of the informant. When defendant saw the uniformed deputies, he began walking away. Defendant was not carrying identification. Defendant said his name was John while a companion said defendant's name was Rick. Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for trying to sell drugs.id: 10935
Search of a group of students was reasonable where another student informed the dean that someone in the group was carrying a weapon.An unidentified summer school student advised the dean of students that someone in appellant's group was in possession of a gun or other weapon. Under the circumstances, a cursory search of appellant and the five or six others in his group was reasonable.id: 10937
Since the witness was not shown to be a coparticipant as a matter of law his out-of-court statement was sufficient to establish probable cause even though not corroborated.Defendant argued the evidence at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to establish probable cause. He claimed the declarant, whose statement was recounted by a qualified law enforcement officer, was a coparticipant in the offense, and hence that his statement was too unreliable to establish probable cause unless corroborated. However, the declarant stated he was not involved in the shooting and while he was at the scene he had no knowledge that defendant had a weapon or planned to use it. If that statement was credible he was not a coparticipant. Since he was not shown to be a coparticipant as a matter of law, his out of court statement was sufficient to establish probable cause even though not corroborated.id: 10938
That the informants' names were omitted from the affidavit did not necessarily mean they were anonymous informants.The trial court found the information provided by four anonymous tipsters was insufficient to justify a search warrant. However, nothing in the affidavit suggested the informants' identities were unknown to the police. The reasonable implication was that their names were omitted from the affidavit because of their desire for confidentiality. Moreover, since two of the citizen informants made the same assertion of people making frequent brief visits to defendant's residence, which visits were an indication of narcotics traffic, and both informants saw suspicious activity in defendant's driveway, their information was mutually supporting and increased the probability that such information was true.id: 10939
Ulterior motive of informant did not negate his credibility and render the tip unreliable.Defendant argued the tipster was unreliable as a citizen informant because he divulged the drug use information to avoid receiving a citation, and such an ulterior motive negated the tipster's credibility and rendered the tip unreliable to support probable cause. However, the instant tip was given for both good citizenship and diversionary motives and the tipster's desire to avoid a citation did not cast doubt on the accuracy of the information. The informant was properly found to be reliable where the officer knew his identity and the tip given was detailed and firsthand information.id: 10940
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850