FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
Randy Sutton

Randy Sutton

Randy Sutton is a 33-year law enforcement veteran, a trainer, and the national spokesman for The American Council on Public Safety. He served 10 years with the Princeton (N.J.) Police Department and 23 years with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, retiring at the rank of lieutenant. He is an author who has published multiple books on law enforcement.

Security Policy and the Cloud

Ask The Expert

Mark Rivera

FBI-CJIS Security Policy Compliance Officer

Mark Rivera, Customer Retention Manager and CJIS Security Compliance Officer with Vigilant Solutions, served for sixteen years with the Maryland State Police, retiring at the rank of First Sergeant with thirteen of those years at the supervisory and command level. He holds a Master of Science Degree in Management from The Johns Hopkins University and Secret clearance through the FBI, Baltimore.

June 2016 (2)
May 2016 (3)
April 2016 (2)
March 2016 (1)
February 2016 (3)
January 2016 (1)
December 2015 (1)
November 2015 (5)
October 2015 (1)
September 2015 (3)
August 2015 (3)
July 2015 (6)
June 2015 (3)
May 2015 (2)
April 2015 (3)
March 2015 (5)
February 2015 (1)
January 2015 (1)
December 2014 (9)
October 2014 (2)
September 2014 (2)
August 2014 (2)
July 2014 (1)
June 2014 (2)
May 2014 (2)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (2)
February 2014 (3)
January 2014 (3)
December 2013 (2)
November 2013 (2)
October 2013 (3)
September 2013 (5)
August 2013 (3)
July 2013 (3)
June 2013 (3)
May 2013 (4)
April 2013 (3)
March 2013 (5)
February 2013 (3)
January 2013 (3)
December 2012 (5)
November 2012 (2)
October 2012 (4)
September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (5)
July 2012 (4)
June 2012 (3)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (6)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (3)
January 2012 (5)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (3)
October 2011 (3)
September 2011 (3)
August 2011 (2)
July 2011 (2)
June 2011 (3)
May 2011 (4)
April 2011 (3)
March 2011 (5)
February 2011 (3)
January 2011 (3)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (4)
October 2010 (4)
September 2010 (5)
August 2010 (4)
July 2010 (4)
June 2010 (4)
May 2010 (4)
April 2010 (3)
March 2010 (3)
February 2010 (1)
January 2010 (3)
December 2009 (4)
November 2009 (4)
October 2009 (2)
September 2009 (3)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (5)
June 2009 (3)
May 2009 (5)
April 2009 (4)
March 2009 (4)
February 2009 (3)
January 2009 (2)
December 2008 (4)
November 2008 (3)
October 2008 (3)
September 2008 (3)
August 2008 (2)
July 2008 (3)
June 2008 (4)
May 2008 (5)
April 2008 (5)
March 2008 (4)
February 2008 (5)
January 2008 (3)
December 2007 (2)
November 2007 (5)
October 2007 (4)
September 2007 (4)
August 2007 (5)
July 2007 (4)
June 2007 (4)
May 2007 (5)

SCOTUS Backs Up Officers with Ruling on Anonymous Tips

In Navarette v. California, the Court found for the state saying officers must weigh the totality of circumstances when acting on anonymous tips.

April 24, 2014  |  by

On April 22, the Supreme Court ruled on Navarette vs. California, a case which called into question the validity of a traffic stop based only on an anonymous 911 tip. The justices ruled 5-4 in favor of the stop, saying in the majority opinion: "The traffic stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated."

The case comes from an August 2008 call to the Mendocino County 911 center reporting a pickup truck, suspected drunk driver, forcing a vehicle off the road. The caller gave a specific description of the car including the plate. The caller did not give his or her name, but given the fact that it was a 911 call, the dispatchers certainly had the caller's phone number. The pickup was located and an officer smelled marijuana coming from the truck. A search of the truck netted about 30 pounds of marijuana and the arrest of Lorenzo and Jose Navarette. They were later convicted of marijuana trafficking. They appealed, claiming an unreasonable stop in violation of their 4th Amendment rights.

Officers get anonymous tips, BOLOs, and "attempt to locate" calls all day long. A great deal of them are anonymous, but the officer is duty-bound to try to locate the alleged wrong-doer and, if found, investigate. What do you do when you find the vehicle or person who is alleged to have committed a crime? If the officer doesn't see any wrongdoing, then the officer has to make a reasonable decision based on what he or she knows. Every circumstance is different, and the justices in this case seemed to make an effort to limit the scope of Navarette vs. California, but the message was clear, and in my opinion, the right one. If it went the other way, then officers would have their hands tied if they locate the subject of a BOLO and can't investigate any further.

So what is the best practice when dealing with anonymous tips? My experience is that you have to evaluate the totality of the information you have. Like any other call for service, you have to go on what you know and what you see. It's always best, when dealing with a vehicle on the highway, to spot a violation yourself and articulate it in the official record. A probable cause stop based on a traffic violation is the best scenario, but that isn't always what happens. This is where the experience of the officer in evaluating and reporting what he or she knew at the time of the stop is invaluable to a successful prosecution.

In Navarette, the report was that a truck was being operated recklessly, therefore creating a hazard to other motorists. The officers had to try to find the car and investigate. What if they let it go without interdicting and the driver went on to kill somebody? I think the important factors that the officers are assumed to have considered in Navarette are: the tipster reported it right after it happened so most likely there wasn't time to make up a set of facts, the report was of a nature to create a public hazard, the caller was very specific in the vehicle description and license plate. There was no doubt that they had the right truck when they made the stop.

So what is the take away from Navarette vs. California? I think it should be that officers can and should act on a reasonable tip that a crime is being committed. Like every other call you handle involving a report of a crime, you have to evaluate every bit of information, use every bit of your experience and training, and make a reasonable and defensible decision on how to act. If dealing with a vehcile on the street, try to add your own observations to the mix to make the reason for the stop that much more defensible. In the end, you'll have to write your criminal report with as much detail as possible about what facts and circumstances you considered before you took action.


Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Zip Code:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine