SD: No corroboration of CI’s tip voided stop, even under Navarrette

“In each of the foregoing decisions, the stop at issue was upheld either because of independent observation by law-enforcement officers or because the tip itself demonstrated the informant’s basis of knowledge for alleging criminal conduct. In this case, the report Deputy Kriese received ‘did not articulate any facts describing illegal conduct or any conduct that would otherwise give rise to an inference of criminal activity. [Deputy Kriese] did not corroborate the report’s conclusory assertion by personal observation of [Stanage].’ Id. ¶ 13, 864 N.W.2d at 785 (emphasis added). Thus, under Navarette, Scholl, and the other authorities discussed above, the totality of the circumstances in this case did not provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” State v. Stanage, 2017 SD 12, ¶18, 2017 S.D. LEXIS 33 (April 5, 2017).

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.