D.N.J.: Anonymous DV call didn’t have to be corroborated to be relied upon by officer

Anonymous domestic violence call involving a gun was sufficient for the police to find it credible and respond. Corroboration isn’t the only way to make a call believable. The officers don’t have to see it to believe it, and the inherent nature of domestic violence and how it recurs here is enough for the stop. United States v. McCants, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121157 (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2016):

The Court cannot consider the totality of the circumstances without also considering the undeniable fact that the call in the instant case involved a domestic violence dispute with a gun. McCants contends that “[n]one of the six reports contains information indicating that Mr. McCants was observed beating a woman or doing anything that suggested he had a gun.” (Def. Mov. Br. at 10). However, as the Seventh Circuit noted, domestic violence comes and goes. See Wooden, 551 F.3d at 650. Along the same lines, “a man who pulls a gun on his wife or girlfriend may do it again at any moment. (There is also a risk that an armed man may threaten the woman with him that, unless she ‘acts natural’ when the police arrive, she will be beaten or shot later.)” Id. (emphasis added). For the Seventh Circuit, the domestic violence tip implied a need for dispatch because it “arise[d] from a recorded 911 call that revealed how the caller knew about the crime,” which is analogous to the instant case. See id. Thus, the fact that the police did not observe McCants beating Fulton, or observe any physical evidence of domestic violence, is of no moment for the Court. What is relevant, however, is the allegation of domestic violence coupled with the possession of a firearm. The Court must allow the officers to draw inferences from their experience and specialized training. See Brown, 448 F.3d at 247. And it is indeed plausible to infer that McCants ceased attacking Fulton before the police arrived and left no physical evidence or injuries.