N.D.Iowa: Anonymous 911 call wasn’t good enough under Florida v. J.L.

This 911 call that defendant was likely with a gun was more like Florida v. J.L. than Naverette v. California, and it lacked indicia of reliability. While it’s a “close case,” the motion to suppress should be granted. “Nothing in the Navarette case suggests that the Court is turning away from its unanimous decision in J.L., entered just 15 years ago.” United States v. Hall, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128631 (N.D. Iowa September 10, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126453 (N.D. Iowa September 22, 2015):

The anonymous 911 caller in this case did not claim a contemporaneous eyewitness observation of the alleged illegal activity. Instead, the caller claimed “I know he usually like he had a gun in his pocket,” without providing the basis for that knowledge. I believe the facts in this case are more akin to those in J.L., where an anonymous caller stated that “a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun.” J.L., 529 U.S. at 268. Substitute “black station wagon and dreads” for “bus stop and plaid shirt,” and the information provided by the caller in this case was almost identical to that provided by the caller in J.L. In unanimously concluding that there was no reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk J.L., the Court noted that “[a]ll the police had to go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J.L.” Id. at 271. Here, the anonymous caller reported that a light-skinned black male with dreads driving a black station wagon was in possession of a gun. She did not explain how she knew about the gun, and did not supply any basis for believing she had inside information. In both cases, authorities had no information regarding the caller, and no information was provided regarding the basis of the tipster’s knowledge.

I believe this is a close case. After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances, however, I conclude that the quality and quantity of information provided by the 911 caller in this case did not rise to the level required by the Fourth Amendment to conduct an investigatory stop. Nothing in the Navarette case suggests that the Court is turning away from its unanimous decision in J.L., entered just 15 years ago. Because I believe the facts in this case are virtually indistinguishable from those in J.L., I believe the motion to suppress should be granted.