On January 21, 2014, The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Navarette v. California to decide the following issue: “Does the Fourth Amendment (right against unreasonable search and seizure), require an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunk or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle?”
This California case involved a Mendocino County 911 dispatcher in August 2008 who received a call from another county dispatcher reporting that a silver Ford truck had run another car off the road. The car occupants had anonymously reported that the truck ran them off the road. A police officer saw the truck, pulled it over, searched it, and found four large bags of marijuana and arrested Jose and Lorenzo Navarette for marijuana transportation, possession, and sale.
The Navarettes filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana, arguing that the anonymous tip was not sufficient to justify the stop because the officer did not independently corroborated the alleged illegal activity (reckless driving). The magistrate denied the motion, and on the appeal, the California Court of Appeal held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an anonymous tip must be corroborated in order to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This case will impact the continuing development of Fourth Amendment law. The Navarettes argue that the Fourth Amendment requires independent corroboration of reckless driving in order for an anonymous tip to justify stopping a vehicle. California responds that because of the states’ interest in protecting the public, an anonymous tip can supply reasonable suspicion absent police corroboration.
California argues that determinations of reasonable suspicion are based on totality of the circumstances, which include the government’s heightened interest in public safety. The State argues that there is the need for police to intervene in emergency situations and in protecting the public from drunken or reckless drivers. Thus, the State maintains that the officers should not be required to confirm more than innocent details—such as a vehicle’s make, model, and license number—because waiting for confirmation of reckless or drunken driving could allow injury or death.
The Navarettes argue that adopting California’s view would create an automobile exception to the requirement of reasonable suspicion. They point to a distinction made by the U.S. Supreme Court between the dangers presented by a concealed firearm as opposed to a bomb: a bomb presents a large enough threat that corroboration of illegal activity would not be necessary. The contention is that the bomb is potentially such a cataclysmic event that would justify immediate action, while a reckless or drunken driver presents a threat similar to that of a concealed weapon.
They also claim that there is a difference in the threat presented by a driver who makes a seemingly reckless maneuver, possibly because it was necessary, and a driver who is intoxicated, and this difference would require a police direct observation and determination. Moreover, they contend to adopt this would allow anyone with a cell phone to harass a driver by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting drunken or reckless driving.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“NACDL”) argues that anonymous tips of irregular driving are especially unreliable. NACDL maintains that irregular driving is inherently subjective. An anonymous tipster does not know if the irregular driving is due to fatigue, momentary inattention, surprise, or other reasons, and the tipster has no opportunity to observe whether or not the irregular driving continues.
California points out to the court that such abuse of the 911 emergency report system is subject to criminal sanctions and is a misdemeanor in California. Therefore, the use of the 911 systems has inherent indicia of reliability.
The Court’s decision in this case will continue to make the Fourth Amendment law dynamic and evolving. Any inquiries, feel free to call my office at 310-601-7144 or email my office at [email protected]