911 call of man with a gun required a response

911 call of man with a gun in an argument with a woman required an immediate response, and the officer arrived at the scene finding people matching the description, and that justified action. United States v. Wooden, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96208 (N.D. Ind. November 28, 2007):

This 911 caller reported an emergency situation — an argument between a man armed with a gun and a woman, which was taking place in a high-crime area of South Bend. Although the caller didn’t disclose his name, Officers Reynolds and Gibbons promptly responded, confirmed that there was a pay phone within an area where the caller could have observed the man and woman walking towards the 7-11 Store, and observed a man and a woman matching the description provided by the caller in the area described by the caller. Where, as here, a 911 call reports an immediate threat to public safety and provides sufficient details to enable officers to identify the suspects, the court may “presume the reliability” of an eyewitness 911 call for purposes of establishing reasonable suspicion for the police to make a proper stop. “Requiring further indicia of reliability would only jeopardize the usefulness of the 911 system and the ability of officers to prevent further danger to the public.” United States v. Drake, 456 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir. 2006).

Officer had not stopped the defendant when he parked near defendant’s car on a parking lot, without lights, and approached defendant’s car to talk to him. At the car, he observed indicia of drug use in plain view, and the rest was justified. United States v. Mays, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9202 (N.D. Cal. January 9, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.