Florida v. J.L. 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L. Ed.2d 254 (2000)
The police got an anonymous
tip that a juvenile (J.L.) was loitering at a bus stop carrying a
concealed weapon.
The police went to the bus
stop, found J.L., frisked him, and found a gun. He was arrested and
charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
The police relied on the stop
and frisk rules, which requires only
that they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed. They do not need probable
cause. That's known as a Terry
stop.
See Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1 (1968)).
At Trial, J.L. made a motion
to suppress the evidence.
J.L. argued that even under
the lower standard, the police did not have reasonable suspicion.
The Trial Court granted the
motion and suppressed the evidence. The prosecutor appealed.
The Appellate Court reversed.
J.L. appealed.
The Florida Supreme Court
reversed the Appellate Court and suppressed the evidence. The prosecutor
appealed.
The Florida Supreme Court
found that this search was a violation of J.L.'s 4th
Amendment rights.
The US Supreme Court affirmed.
The US Supreme Court found
that a stop and frisk search can
only occur when there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. In
this case, the anonymous tip by itself was not sufficient to establish reasonable
suspicion.
J.L. was just hanging
around, he wasn't doing anything suspicious.
The Court found that in
order to justify the search, the police needed to verify the credibility
of the informant and the information given or the tip needed to be
corroborated with some sort of unusual conduct by the suspect that would
reasonably lead an officer to conclude that criminal activity could be
afoot.
This reasoning is comparable
to the Court's treatment of anonymous sources and probable cause in Illinois
v. Gates (462 U.S. 231 (1983)).
The difference is that here,
J.L. wasn't doing anything unusual, and that nature of the prediction in
this case did not give rise to the belief that the tipster had any inside
knowledge about J.L.
An anonymous source is
valid only if the information they provide could only have come from
someone who has inside knowledge.
Anyone could have noticed
that J.L. was standing there, it wasn't predictive, and so didn't imply that the tipster
actually knew anything about J.L. If the tipster said that J.L. would
arrive at the bus stop at a certain time wearing a certain shirt, that
would have been more valid because it implies that the tipster knew
J.L. personally.