CA11: Jury gets to decide here that stop lacked RS

There’s a dispute for the jury whether there was reasonable suspicion for plaintiff’s continued detention. The stop was based on an anonymous tip, and plaintiff didn’t match it, which the officers had to know. Jarvis v. City of Daytona Beach, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3795 (11th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).* [And I always wondered how we’d instruct a jury on reasonable suspicion so it makes sense to them.]:

We agree with the district court that whether the Officers had reasonable suspicion of another crime based on the totality of the circumstances is an issue for the jury.

As the district court explained, the Officers’ wholesale reliance on the tip is misplaced. Although the tip did identify a car similar to Jarvis’s at a nearby apartment complex, the tip was anonymous and merely related that the car was in the parking lot surrounded by people. Moreover, an anonymous tip, “standing alone, would not warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that [a stop] was appropriate.” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329 (1990) (quotation marks omitted). For an anonymous tip to reasonably support an officer’s suspicion of criminal activity, it must be accompanied by sufficient indicia of the tip’s reliability. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 1378 (2000). A detailed, contemporaneous report of suspicious activity to a 911 emergency dispatcher carries with it sufficient indicia of reliability when the details and location of the described events turn out to be correct. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 400, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1689-90 (2014).

Here, the caller reported that a black or blue Mitsubishi was in the parking lot with a crowd around it and there was a white man in his forties wearing a red tank top, black basketball shorts, white shoes, and carrying a backpack, walking around the vehicle. The dispatcher was the one who characterized the incident as possibly involving drugs. But Jarvis, according to the dashcam, was wearing a green t-shirt and khaki shorts, so he did not match the description. The Officers did not report there was a concern about drug activity in the area and did not independently investigate the tip. They did not observe Jarvis engage in any narcotics activity beforehand that would provide credibility to the tip. Between the disconnect in the physical description and the caller’s lack of personal knowledge about what was occurring, the tip alone did not provide enough for the Officers to extend the search.