Anonymous Tip Legal Definition

The Supreme Court ruled that the combination of the anonymous informant`s tip and police confirmation of some of the information provided in Gates was sufficient to identify a likely reason for issuing the search warrant. This was true despite the fact that what the police confirmed were mostly innocent details – in other words, details that (in the absence of the criminal charges) did not necessarily indicate criminal activity. “The fact that their identity remains unknown increases the risk of consequences as a result of appeals,” the Court of Appeal added. “Knowing the caller`s number – nothing more – did not change the factors underlying J.L.`s request that anonymous calls be supported by evidence of reliability. In addition, there must be reasonable suspicion at the time of a Terry decision. At the time this [Freeman] stop was made – and continues to this day – the police did not know if they would be able to find the Appellant, and therefore had no way of knowing whether the consequences of false reports led the Appellant to tell the truth. Although the call was recorded, the two factors that distinguish advice from known and unknown sources are still effective in this case – the credibility of the caller cannot be assessed and there is no risk of consequences for a false report in this case. In J.L., the anonymous informant called the police and reported that “a young black man standing at a certain bus stop wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun.” According to the court, this was not enough to give rise to reasonable suspicion, even though police did find an African-American man in a checkered shirt at the designated bus stop. More relevant to Navarette`s objectives, the court in j.L. said a tip that accurately indicates the location and appearance of a suspect “does not show that the tipster has knowledge of hidden criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion at stake here requires that a tip be reliable in its allegation of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a particular person. (emphasis added).

Last November, the Second Circuit in United States v. Freeman dealt with a case similar to that of Florida v. J.L. Joseph Freeman was convicted of a gun-possessing crime — a weapon discovered based on two anonymous 911 calls to the New York Police Department in April 2011. A clue from an anonymous informant that there was heavy foot traffic at a single person`s home is not enough to determine a probable cause. See Bailey v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1107. If the police had arrested the driver immediately, it might have been easier to defend what the officers were doing.

The charge was that the driver had chased the anonymous caller off the road, a simply reckless thing while driving. And from this charge, if we are to believe it, the police could reasonably have concluded that the driver continues to drive recklessly if he is not arrested. Therefore, after the police spied on the vehicle, which was allegedly involved in the informant`s exit from the road, it may have seemed urgent for the police to stop the vehicle immediately, despite the bare bones of the anonymous informant`s information. Pre-trial detention is illegal if it is based only on an insufficient factor, such as: one could distinguish the facts of J.L. (man with a firearm) from the facts of Navarette (man driving recklessly). A report from a driver keeping an informant off the road is arguably more concrete and threatening than a report from a suspect in possession of a firearm. One could be in possession of a firearm, even an illegal one, without posing an immediate threat to anyone. In contrast, a driver who has just driven another driver off the road appears to pose an immediate danger to other drivers and pedestrians, much like someone with an illegal firearm who is accused of accidentally shooting into a crowd.

این مطلب چطور بود؟

نظرات بسته شده است، اما بازتاب و پینگ باز است.