CT: Pedestrian citizen informant gave sufficient information for a stop

Officers received information from a pedestrian citizen informant that the defendant tried to sell him drugs, and the officer started following the defendant’s car. Then there were furtive movements in the car by the driver and passenger, and the officer, after stopping the car, was concerned about guns. He handcuffed the driver and searched the car finding a .25 Baretta. The informant did not want to disclose his identity, but that did not prevent there being RS. State v. Jarrell, 968 A.2d 920 (Conn. App. April 21, 2009)* (dissent here):

Although the police could not be certain that the pedestrian lacked a motive to lie, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that she had such a motive or that when she spoke with the police, at their behest, she knew that regardless of what she told the police, she would be free to go on her way. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s argument that the police could not rely to some degree on the information provided by the pedestrian. We conclude that the police, in their evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, properly relied on the information that the pedestrian provided.

Defendant was under surveillance for being a drug dealer, and then the police learned he was on parole, so his PO went to the house and said he wanted to conduct a parole search. Defendant assisted in finding a gun and volunteered he would be “hot” on a UA. It was all by consent. Brooks v. State, 285 Ga. 424, 677 S.E.2d 68 (2009).*

Defendants’ car matched the description of one involved in a recent home invasion robbery down to the number of suspects. The stop was justified, and ordering them out of the car was reasonable. Commonwealth v. White, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 342 (June 1, 2009).*

CI gave information that defendant would leave his house to make a marijuana sale. Police watched him, and he left his house and returned. Based on the CI’s information, there was a nexus to the house for a search. State v. Malone, 25 So. 3d 493 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.