Anonymous caller was corroborated by 911 caller who could be held accountable for false information, even though name not left

Anonymous caller of man with a gun was corroborated by a 911 call with detail including defendant’s license number where the 911 caller could be located by caller ID. The officer also corroborated details before acting on them. United States v. Massaro, 560 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D. Mass. 2008):

As the government points out, Massaro’s reliance on J.L. is, however, misplaced. Unlike the situation in J.L. in which there was only one anonymous, unrecorded call, here there were two calls, one anonymous and one recorded over the 911 line. The recorded call was from a woman who did not give her name but supplied her address and apartment number. By revealing her location, including the apartment number, she provided enough information to be held accountable if her allegations turned out to be untrue. Cf. J.L., 529 U.S. at 270 (contrasting an anonymous tip with a tip from someone who can be held responsible for a fabricated allegation). Although Massaro contends that the woman called from a known drug house, the 911 operator testified that she spoke clearly and provided detailed information. Also, unlike the situation in J.L., she supplied a basis for knowledge. She reported that she had seen a man outside her window pointing a gun. She did not give the 911 operator a detailed description of the armed man but she was able to supply the license plate number of his vehicle. The second, anonymous call corroborated the first call, thereby supporting its reliability.

Officers were lawfully in house with an arrest warrant, and they found defendant in somebody else’s bed, fully dressed and covered by a sheet such that weapons could be concealed. The government’s contention that defendant abandoned jacket did not have to be reached because the officers had reasonable suspicion to look in the jacket. United States v. Longs, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44585 (D. Minn. June 5, 2008).*

Defendant’s guilty plea was a waiver of his search claim. Defendant did not waive ineffective assistance as to the plea itself, but that did not affect the search claim. Mangiapane v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44616 (E.D. Mo. June 5, 2008).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective in the defendant’s suppression hearing where he vigorously cross-examined witnesses, and the court determined that the officers had a reasonable belief that the consenter had apparent authority to do so. United States v. Merrill, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44645 (E.D. La. June 4, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.