Prado Navarette Et Al. v. California, 572 U.S. _____ (April 22, 2014) An Analysis
Brandon Hughes
Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Alabama Office of Prosecution Services
alabamaDUIprosecution.com
A question I frequently receive from prosecutors and law enforcement is whether or not a traffic stop can be made based solely on a 911 call. The issue is whether or not, upon making visual contact with the vehicle, an officer can initiate a traffic stop or does the officer first need to establish reasonable cause through personal observation?
This case goes to the heart of that question.
Issue: Does an officer have reasonable cause to initiate a traffic stop based solely on a 911 call reporting a possible impaired driver?
Ruling: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) concluded that a 911 call does give rise to the requisite reasonable cause to make a traffic stop so long as an anonymous tip1 can demonstrate “sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make [an] investigatory stop.” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S.
325, 327 (1990).
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion.
1 Pursuant to footnote 1 of this decision, SCOTUS states that since the prosecution did not present the 911 call recording into evidence during the suppression hearing and that since the prosecution did not call the 911 caller nor the Humboldt County dispatcher as witnesses, “[t]he prosecution proceeded to treat the tip as anonymous, and the lower courts followed suit.” See 2012 WL 4842651, *6 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012).
Facts: On the afternoon of August 23, 2008 a 911 call was placed to the Humboldt County (CA) dispatch reporting that the driver of a “Silver Ford F 150” pickup truck had run the caller off the road. The caller also gave the location of the incident—
highway number, mile marker posting, and direction of travel—as well as the truck’s license plate number to the 911 operator. The Humboldt County dispatcher relayed the information to neighboring Mendocino County—where the driver of the pickup truck was traveling towards—whom then broadcast the information to California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers in the area at 3:47 pm approximately five minutes after the 911 call was made. At 4:00 pm a CHP officer traveling northbound passed the truck traveling southbound, made a U-‐turn, and pulled the truck over. A second officer arrived at the scene and upon approach of the vehicle the officers smelled marijuana. A subsequent search of the truck bed revealed 30 pounds of marijuana and the driver and passenger were both arrested.
The petitioners filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence saying that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The motion to suppress was denied by both the magistrate and the trial court. The defendants pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana and received a sentence of 90 days in jail plus three years probation.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision concluding that the officer did have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. 2012 WL 4842651 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2012). The California Supreme Court denied review.
Analysis of the Prado Navarette Decision:
“The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops—such as the traffic stop in this case—when a law enforcement officer has ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’”
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-‐418 (1981).
“The ‘reasonable suspicion’ necessary to justify such a stop ‘is dependant upon both the content of information possessed and its degree of reliability.’”
White, supra, at 330. “The standard takes into account ‘the totality of the
circumstances—the whole picture.’” Cortez, supra, at 417.
Was the Call/Caller Reliable? Both the California Court of Appeal and SCOTUS found that the caller in this case was reliable and, therefore, could be the basis for a valid traffic stop. The appellate court “reasoned that the content of the tip indicated that it came from an eyewitness victim of reckless driving, and that the officer’s corroboration of the truck’s description, location, and direction of travel established that the tip was reliable enough to justify a traffic stop.” 2012 WL 4842651 at *7 (Oct. 12, 2012). The Court echoed this finding in the instant case.
At the core of the Court’s reasoning on reliability is the detail relayed by the 911 caller and the fact that the caller used the 911 emergency system to report the incident.
The detail given by the caller—make, model, license plate number, and color of the vehicle; location of the incident; direction of the vehicle’s travel—“lends significant support to the tip’s reliability.”
“[An informant’s] explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, entitles his tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 244 (1983).
Further confirming the reliability of the tip is the fact that the defendant’s vehicle was spotted in a location, at a time, and traveling in the direction consistent with the caller’s statement.
The fact that the caller used the 911 system contributed to the reliability of the tip because of the ability for the system to identify and trace callers “thus providing some safeguards against making false reports with immunity.” The Court did not state that tips in 911 calls are per se reliable, “however, a reasonable officer could conclude that a false tipster would think twice before using such a system.
The caller’s use of the 911 system is therefore one of the relevant circumstances that, taken together, justified the officer’s reliance on the information reported in the 911 call.”
Did the Tip Create a Reasonable Suspicion of an Ongoing Crime Such as Drunk Driving? “Even a reliable tip will justify an investigative stop only if it creates reasonable suspicion that ‘criminal activity may be afoot.’” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-‐22 (1968).
As Justice Thomas writes in the opinion, “[w]e conclude that the behavior alleged by the 911 caller, ‘viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount[s] to reasonable suspicion’ of drunk driving.” Ornelas v.
United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996). From the opinion of the instant case: “The
stop was therefore proper.” Justice Thomas further states, “Under that common sense approach [established in Ornelas, supra], we can appropriately recognize certain driving behaviors as sound indicia of drunk driving.”
More from Justice Thomas on that point: “We cannot say that the officer acted unreasonably under these circumstances in stopping a driver whose alleged conduct was a significant indicator of drunk driving.”
Requiring an officer’s personal observations: SCOTUS has “…firmly rejected the argument ‘that reasonable cause for a[n investigative stop] can only be based on the officer’s personal observation, rather than information supplied by another person.’” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147 (1972).
On this point, Justice Thomas writes: “Nor did the absence of additional suspicious conduct, after the vehicle was first spotted by an officer, dispel the reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.” It was reasoned that seeing a police car puts people on their best behavior so it should be no surprise that the appearance of a police car would bring about more careful driving. “[s]lowing down after spotting a law enforcement vehicle does not dispel reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”
States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277 (2002).
Justice Thomas further writes: “Of course, an officer who already has such a reasonable suspicion need not surveil a vehicle at length in order to personally observe suspicious driving.”
The opinion delivered by the California Court of Appeal in this case also put it well when it stated that the caller reported driving that was sufficiently dangerous
to merit an investigative stop without waiting for the officer to observe additional reckless driving himself.
Perhaps Justice Thomas put it best regarding the idea that an officer personally observe a potentially drunk driver upon making contact based on a reliable tip when it stated: “…allowing a drunk driver a second chance for dangerous conduct could have disastrous consequences.”
Conclusion
The validity of a traffic stop made as a result of a 911 call or anonymous tip is going to ultimately hinge on the reliability of the information and the nature of the activity.
For example, if an officer receives a call from dispatch that says a motorist called in to report a white truck driving erratically on I-‐85, and the officer stops the first white truck he or she sees on I-‐85 and finds evidence of a crime, that stop is not likely to pass a suppression hearing. I believe the officer should attempt to establish reasonable cause for a traffic stop based on personal observation when presented with tips lacking in significant detail.
However, if an officer receives a call from dispatch stating that a motorist reported that a white Dodge truck with a red tailgate and a Georgia license plate was driving erratically on I-‐85 northbound at mile marker 62, and the officer subsequently spots a vehicle matching that description on I-‐85 northbound within a few miles of mile marker 62, then that should pass muster for a valid traffic stop without the officer having to establish reasonable suspicion through personal observation.
There is no checklist for when a 911 call or anonymous tip does or does not provide reasonable suspicion on its own, but it requires a totality-‐of-‐the-‐
circumstances approach as outlined by the Supreme Court of the United States in this case.
Feel free to contact me anytime with regard to this or any other impaired driving related issue.
