NJ: Discussing Navarette, an anonymous 911 call about shots fired from van was RS

Discussing but saying it’s not relying on Navarette, New Jersey holds that an anonymous 911 call about a van from which shots were fired was stopped with reasonable suspicion when it was seen and a protective weapons frisk of the vehicle was proper. State v. Gamble, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 801 (July 29, 2014):

No one factor was determinative. Here, there was a confluence of factors, including the 9-1-1 calls reporting gunshots and an individual with a gun, the late hour, the location of the van in a high-crime area, and the furtive movements of the van’s occupants when the officers arrived on the scene and as they approached the vehicle. While the United States Supreme Court and this Court have held that anonymous 9-1-1 calls alone may contain sufficient indicia of reliability in certain situations, notably reports of intoxicated driving, see Navarette, supra, 572 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1690-91, 188 L. Ed. 2d at 689-90; Golotta, supra, 178 N.J. at 209, we need not determine here whether the anonymous 9-1-1 calls alone were sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Based on the totality of the circumstances, once the officer completed the patdown of defendant and did not locate the gun, it was reasonable for the officer to believe the van contained a gun. To permit defendant and his passenger to re-enter the van before ensuring that it did not contain a weapon ignores the risk to officers and public safety.

In sum, the 9-1-1 calls were simply one piece of the puzzle. The totality of all the circumstances provided the officers with a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individuals were involved in criminal activity and thus permitted the investigatory stop and the protective sweep of the van.