The caller wasn\u2019t anonymous because he gave his name. \u201cThe fact that the 911 dispatcher could not confirm that identity does not change that fact. In arguing that the police could not verify [his] credibility, the defendant ignores the facts that he sounded distressed to the 911 dispatcher and that he was not reporting events unrelated to him-he was reporting that he had just been a victim of a crime. The caller was not an anonymous tipster, \u2018ratting out\u2019 an identified individual. He simply said that he’d just been robbed by two men and he described them. He \u2018necessarily claimed eyewitness knowledge\u2019 of an alleged crime contemporaneous to that alleged crime through the use of the 911 emergency system. Navarette, 572 U.S. at 399-400. Under Navarette, even if the call had been anonymous, that fact alone would not preclude a finding of reasonable suspicion.\u201d The information was corroborated, too. United States v. Johnson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183710 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 2, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The caller wasn\u2019t anonymous because he gave his name. \u201cThe fact that the 911 dispatcher could not confirm that identity does not change that fact. In arguing that the police could not verify [his] credibility, the defendant ignores the facts … Continue reading