Unknown regular citizen informant’s information was more reliable

The police received regular tips from a person they had talked to repeatedly who had given information about various crimes that had proved reliable. He claimed to be an insomniac who rode his bike around the neighborhood at all hours, and he reported what he saw. He gave information about drug usage at a particular house described by its color and location but not street address. Police did a knock and talk at 4 a.m., and people left the premises when they showed up. This justified the stop of defendant, and the officer did not act unlawfully in opening the car door. Hampton v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2007), released for publication September 13, 2007:

The police, however, had other information that justified their stop of Appellant when combined with the tip. The officers testified that they went to the house to perform a so-called “knock and talk,” wherein they would knock on the front door of the house, ask some questions, and request consent to look in the house. They had received previous reports of drug activity at the house, so it was not unknown to them as a possible site of ongoing crime. In fact, the house had been the subject of some surveillance by the local Drug Task Force.

As the officers approached the house, eight to ten people left and got into their cars. Officer Eversoll testified that some of the people were walking and that others were running. Officer Woodward, however, testified that all the people were running and that all the people were hurrying. The trial court apparently believed the testimony of Officer Woodward because its findings of fact note, “As they approached, Officers Woodward and Eversoll observed 8-10 people run out of the house and into cars parked outside. This occurred at approximately 4:00 a.m.” (Emphasis added.)

. . .

When the fleeing is combined with the somewhat reliable tip that drug activity was occurring at the house, along with previous reports of drug activity at the house and the fact that the fleeing occurred just as police began approaching, the situation takes on an entirely new–and suspicious–light. The convergence of those events gives rise to more than a nebulous and inchoate suspicion of criminal activity, and would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the people had been involved in drug activity at the house and were then attempting to leave the scene of the crime. That Appellant was one of the fleeing people would justify the officers’ belief that it was appropriate to investigate him, stopping him temporarily in the process. In light of the totality of the circumstances, it is clear that the officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Appellant was engaged in criminal activity, thereby justifying a brief investigatory stop.

Random license plate checks are not unconstiutitonal, and defense counsel could not be ineffective for not challenging it. Maloney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. App. 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.