Navarette v. CaliforniaArgued January 21, 2014

Fourth AmendmentText

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth AmendmentText

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio

Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio

“[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.”

Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio

“[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio

“[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio

Probable Cause = Search

No Probable Cause = No Search

Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio

Probable Cause = Search

No Probable Cause &No Reasonable Suspicion = No Search

Something less than Probable Cause= Abbreviated Search

Reasonable SuspicionThe Standard

Specific and articulable facts that allow rational inferences that suspect is engaged in criminal activity

ReasonableSuspicion:

Reasonable SuspicionTips

When can tips provide reasonable suspicion?

Issue:

Reasonable SuspicionTips

When can tips provide reasonable suspicion?

Issue:

Veracity, Reliability, & Basis of Knowledge

Balance:

Reasonable SuspicionTips

Tip: anonymous letter with predictions and assertions of wrongdoing Court: totality test; PC where predictive and corroborated

Illinois v. Gates, 426 U.S. 213 (1983)

Tip: anonymous call with predictions and assertions of wrongdoing Court: RAS once corroborated by police

Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 2325 (1990)

Tip: anonymous call with observationCourt: no RAS unless corroboratedPossible Exception: bomb

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)

Reasonable SuspicionTips

Rule: detailed tip + predictions (of criminal wrongdoing) + corroboration of predictions is sufficient

Illinois v. Gates, 426 U.S. 213 (1983)

Rule: prediction + corroboration can suffice (even where facts are benign)

Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 2325 (1990)

Rule: corroboration of innocent, readily available (non-predictive) facts is not enough

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)

Rule: anonymous tip of drunk driving is enough, no need for corroboration (relied on J.L. bomb dicta)

People v. Wells., 38 Cal.4th 1078 (2006)

Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?

Is there reasonable suspicion to stop a car where an anonymous 911 call alerts police that a silver Ford F-150 had run a vehicle off the road at mile marker 88 on southbound Highway 1, where police were unable to corroborate any wrongdoing?

Issue:

Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?

Identity of Tipster?:(White)

Detailed?:(Gates)

Criminal Wrongdoing?:(White, Gates)

Corroborated?:(White)

“Bomb” Exception?:(J.L. Dicta)

Predictive?:(White, Gates)

Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?

Identity of Tipster?:(White)

Detailed?:(Gates)

Criminal Wrongdoing?:(White, Gates)

Corroborated?:(White)

“Bomb” Exception?:(J.L. Dicta)

Predictive?:(White, Gates)

“The facts of this case do not require us to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability. We do not say, for example, that a report of a person carrying a bomb need bear the indicia of reliability we demand for a report of a person carrying a firearm before the police can constitutionally conduct a frisk.” (J.L., 529 U.S. at 273–74).

Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?

In the case of a tip, does the underlying crime matter, and if so, is it an exception to reasonable suspicion for extreme events, or is to be balanced with the indicia of reliability?

Question:

Navarette v. CaliforniaThe Parties’ Positions

Weigh veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge; extreme examples (i.e., bombs) are exceptions

Navarette:

Weigh veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge, should be balanced against the strength of the government interest in making the stop

California:

Navarette v. CaliforniaThe Parties’ Positions

Navarette:

Reliable Tip =OK

No Reliable Tip = Not OK

Reliable Tip + Strong Gov’t Interest = OK

No Reliable Tip = Not OK

Weak Tip + Strong Gov’t Interest OR Strong Tip + Weak Gov’t Interest = OK

California:

**“Bomb” Exception = Maybe OK

Navarette v. CaliforniaOral Argument

TEST YES RAS MAYBE RAS NO RAS

Navarette Assess veracity, reliability, & basis of knowledge (NO severity of offense, but maybe exception)

• Atomic bomb given by Al-Qaeda, headed to LA

• Throwing bombs out the window

• 911 call w/name and address

• Kidnapped child in the trunk

California Weigh veracity, reliability, & basis of knowledge against severity of offense

• X vehicle is driving “recklessly”

• X vehicle cut someone off

• Ran someone off the road, police follow for 30 minutes but see no signs

• Vehicle is speeding• Seatbelt Violation• Guy had one drink in the

bar• Teenager on street with a

gun

Federal Gov’t

Similar to California • Changing lanes w/out a signal

• Cutting someone off

• Seatbelt violation• Rolling stop at stop sign