Legality of detaining and disarming due to a 911 call...

[waterhouse]

Does a police officer have a right to officially DETAIN a person, without their consent, based upon a single 911 call made by a person of unknown character with no other corroborating evidence.

As in many legal issues, I believe "it depends." in US v Johnson, the court listed 5 points of consideration for a 911 call leading to reasonable suspicion for a stop:

1) Whether the information was provided to the police in a face to face interaction, allowing an officer to directly assess credibility;
2) Whether the informant can be held responsible if her allegations were untrue;
3) Whether the information would not be available to the ordinary observer;
4) Whether the informant has recently witnessed the criminal activity at issue; and
5) Whether the informant’s information accurately depicts future activity.

Based on the totality of the circumstances with these 5 points, the stop may be justified based simply on the 911 call.

So yes, in some cases a single 911 call may be enough reasonable suspicion to warrant the stop of the vehicle. Since many of these questions are extremely difficult to answer on the fly, it is generally advised to simply follow the suspicious car until a valid traffic violation occurs.

 

[waterhouse]

Our American Justice system is currently based on actual EVIDENCE being required to convict someone of a crime or infraction and actual, real, articulable reasonable suspicion being required to detain a person.

Correct. Perhaps unfortunately, reasonable suspicion is a pretty low threshold to meet.

When a woman calls 911 and says her husband hit her and left, and gives his clothing description and direction of travel, the police can detain a person matching that description walking away from the area before they meet the woman and see her black eye. In other words, with no investigation phase, the 911 call leads to a detention of a walking person who is breaking no law that the officer sees.

Your specific case is questionable mainly due to the claim that the original 911 call was anonymous. Much less credence, and therefore much less reasonable suspicion developed, is given to anonymous calls.

Nope. The officer's will have sworn witness statement(s) containing the description of the bank robber. They come to McDonald's and see a person there matching the description in the sworn statements, they have all the corroborating evidence they need to detain the person.

This is not how it works. The 911 call description of the suspect is put out over the air. Police search the area and detain the person or persons matching the description. Once everything calms down, sworn statements are written out and field identifications may be made.

The average person (in my experience and depending on the nature of the crime) takes 20 minutes to an hour to write out their sworn statement. Police would never catch someone leaving the scene if they had to wait 20 minutes to an hour for paperwork to be signed.

 

[wickedsprint]

Navy, there seems to be lots of contradictory info floating around. My link shows court cases that make that stop perfectly justified.

 

[NavyLCDR]

1) Whether the information was provided to the police in a face to face interaction, allowing an officer to directly assess credibility;
2) Whether the informant can be held responsible if her allegations were untrue;
3) Whether the information would not be available to the ordinary observer;
4) Whether the informant has recently witnessed the criminal activity at issue; and
5) Whether the informant’s information accurately depicts future activity.

So, I call 911 and report a road rage incident.

1) Is not met unless the officer first interviews me in person.
2) Is generally met. HOWEVER, Just because I tell 911 that I am John Smith does not guarantee that I am actually John Smith. I could lie about my identity, so it is very questionable whether this condition is actually met or not.
3) Is not met. I can get a description of your car, license plate and driver simply by observing you performing perfecly actions in public.
4) I can claim that I witnessed criminal activity. I can lie about witnessing criminal activity. Was my report true?
5) Is not met. I am only reporting past activity....not accurately depicting future activity.

So, without an officer or at least another person corroborating what I have reported, very few, if any, of the 5 points above are met beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Navy, there seems to be lots of contradictory info floating around. My link shows court cases that make that stop perfectly justified.

The link you provided only applies in California because it was in a California court and not decided at the Federal level.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Correct. Perhaps unfortunately, reasonable suspicion is a pretty low threshold to meet.

When a woman calls 911 and says her husband hit her and left, and gives his clothing description and direction of travel, the police can detain a person matching that description walking away from the area before they meet the woman and see her black eye. In other words, with no investigation phase, the 911 call leads to a detention of a walking person who is breaking no law that the officer sees.

Your specific case is questionable mainly due to the claim that the original 911 call was anonymous. Much less credence, and therefore much less reasonable suspicion developed, is given to anonymous calls.



This is not how it works. The 911 call description of the suspect is put out over the air. Police search the area and detain the person or persons matching the description. Once everything calms down, sworn statements are written out and field identifications may be made.

The average person (in my experience and depending on the nature of the crime) takes 20 minutes to an hour to write out their sworn statement. Police would never catch someone leaving the scene if they had to wait 20 minutes to an hour for paperwork to be signed.

Also, in the situation you described, the woman also identifies the exact person, by name, who perpetrated the crime - meeting the further element of having knowledge not attainable to the ordinary observer.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Nope. The officer's will have sworn witness statement(s) containing the description of the bank robber. They come to McDonald's and see a person there matching the description in the sworn statements, they have all the corroborating evidence they need to detain the person.

This is not how it works. The 911 call description of the suspect is put out over the air. Police search the area and detain the person or persons matching the description. Once everything calms down, sworn statements are written out and field identifications may be made.

The average person (in my experience and depending on the nature of the crime) takes 20 minutes to an hour to write out their sworn statement. Police would never catch someone leaving the scene if they had to wait 20 minutes to an hour for paperwork to be signed.

We are talking apples and oranges here. A bank robbery would be assumed to have more corroborating evidence that a bank robbery occured than one person calling 911. There should be several witnessess readily available to, at a minimum, attest to the fact that a bank robbery occured. Unless you are attempting to say that I can call 911 and say, "I just saw a guy in a red shirt and purple pants rob a bank and he is sitting in McDonald's right now!" and that, alone, with no other corroboration, gives police the authority to detain, against his will, the person sitting in McDonald's wearing a red shirt and purple pants.

 

[waterhouse]

'Frisk' is a determination of a ''suspicion' of being armed...The driver announced he was armed, there is no need (or right) to 'frisk'...

That is not how it works.

Terry held:

Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ...he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Any time a person is legally detained, if the officer believes the person is armed and presently dangerous, the officer may frisk for weapons. Admitting that you have a weapon on you does not take away the officers right to frisk for said weapon. In fact, it only makes it easier to articulate.

"Why did you believe my client was armed?"
"He told me that he was armed. I believed him."

Based on the original call text and the interaction with the driver, the officer may have believed that this road rage incident may have caused the driver to be considered dangerous (I wasn't there and haven;t seen the tapes, so this is all speculation.) Once the driver admitted he was armed, the officer may certainly believe the driver.

If the detention is valid (too many variables to tell), then I believe the officer could easily articulate that Terry applies.

 

[NavyLCDR]

That is not how it works.

And I completely agree with that entire post. Like I have been trying to say all along: the lawfullness of the seizure of the firearm depends almost entirely upon the lawfullness of the initial stop.

 

[waterhouse]

So, without an officer or at least another person corroborating what I have reported, very few, if any, of the 5 points above are met beyond a reasonable doubt.

again, RS is a low standard. None of these points have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard for a conviction. For a detention, reasonable suspicion, which is a very low burden of proof, must be met.

911 call centers have caller ID. If you give tell 911 a separate number from the one you are calling from, that could be a red flag. Phone records are easily tracked with a subpoena. It isn't as easy to get away with making false crime reports as you seem to think.

Also, in the situation you described, the woman also identifies the exact person, by name, who perpetrated the crime - meeting the further element of having knowledge not attainable to the ordinary observer.

OK, lets say a woman calls and says she was raped by a stranger. She doesn't have his name, but gives a clothing description, hair color, and general build. As the officer approaches the scene to provide first aid and take her report, he spots a man matching that description. He has enough reasonable suspicion to stop that individual.

Could the woman be lying? Of course, and she can be arrested for making a false report, but the initial stop in that case would be valid. If the guy turned out to be innocent of the rape, but had cocaine on him, I guarantee (at least in this state) the evidence would be admissible. It happens on a daily basis.

 

[waterhouse]

A bank robbery would be assumed to have more corroborating evidence that a bank robbery occured than one person calling 911. There should be several witnessess readily available to, at a minimum, attest to the fact that a bank robbery occured.

Bank robberies are relatively rare. Late night gas station robberies, where the clerk is the only witness, are a lot more common. In this case the single phone call from one counter worker with a description of the suspect is enough to detain a person matching the description.

"Matching the description" doesn't mean "it was a tall white guy." The police can't stop every tall white guy. But a "tall white guy with a Yankees hat and brown beard and a blue shirt" is probably enough to stop that person.

 

[waterhouse]

Also keep in mind, reasonable suspicion as judged by the courts is based on what the officer knew at the time of the stop. My computer has a box that tells me that the complainant left their contact information. At the time of the stop, I believe that the caller has left his name and phone number. If it later turns out that he lied, that does not diminish my reasonable suspicion, because at the time of the stop I believe my caller was not anonymous.

1) Whether the information was provided to the police in a face to face interaction, allowing an officer to directly assess credibility;

You are correct, almost never the case in a 911 call

2) Whether the informant can be held responsible if her allegations were untrue;

As stated, if the call is anonymous, this does not apply. If the caller leaves any name and contact info, it is assumed to be true.

3) Whether the information would not be available to the ordinary observer;

The ordinary observer does not notice things like license plate numbers as they drive around the city during their average day. If someone takes the time to tell 911 a license plate, it is presumed they had a reason to focus on it.

Heck, ordinary observes seem to know little more about cars than how many doors they have and what color they are. I constantly take reports from witnesses who can only say "it was a green sedan."

Therefore, if specific detail is given, such as make, model, license plate, or even a bumper sticker, this is all considered information that an ordinary observer would not know. It generally implies someone who was involved in the incident.

Again, they may be lying, but the officer must go with the information provided. More credence is given to greater detail.

4) Whether the informant has recently witnessed the criminal activity at issue; and

Self explanatory.

5) Whether the informant’s information accurately depicts future activity.

In other words, if they say he was last seen heading west on main street, and the cop sees a matching car 10 blocks west of the crime on main street, that adds credibility to the original 911 call.


The totality of all of these taken together may create enough reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop. All points need not be met. An anonymous caller who gives excellent detail may be good enough. A person who gives their contact info but only a vague car description may be enough.

The question can't really be answered here, because there is no hard and fast line. Lawyers argue these points on cases all the time, and sometimes evidence gets tossed out because the initial stop was deemed to not have enough RS. Sometimes people end up in jail because they were driving a similar car in the wrong place at the wrong time and they had meth on them, and the courts found that there was enough RS for the stop even though the person driving that broke absolutely no law that caused the stop.

 

[Salmoneye]

As I said previously, I do not have an issue with the stop...

I do have an issue with interpreting Terry to mean that an otherwise lawful driver complying with state law to declare he is legally armed, has his personal weapon seized for no reason other than it made the LEO 'feel' better...

 

[SabbathWolf]

...Also, I personally have no problem with the officer taking control of the weapon for the duration of the stop. You know you're a good guy, but the officer doesn't know if you've just knocked off a liquor store and killed the clerk, and are using the "I have a license to carry" as a ruse to reach for your weapon and pop him...

EXACTY!!!!!!!!

Just because the driver "said" he had a permit.....BIG FRICKIN' DEAL!!!
People lie to cops every single day, and cops already know this!

 

[Loosedhorse]

I already provided the court cases

Unless I missed it, the cases you provided all specify anonymous tips. Why would you assume that a caller reporting a road-rage driver is anonymous? And if he is not anonymous (either because he gives his name when asked, or the cell phone call is easily traced back), how do your court cases apply?

I have called 911, and I have not been given the impression that my number was unknown. Also the second question I was asked "What is your name?"

 

[NavyLCDR]

Unless I missed it, the cases you provided all specify anonymous tips. Why would you assume that a caller reporting a road-rage driver is anonymous? And if he is not anonymous (either because he gives his name when asked, or the cell phone call is easily traced back), how do your court cases apply?

I have called 911, and I have not been given the impression that my number was unknown. Also the second question I was asked "What is your name?"

Because a person who is not personally known and whose reliability cannot be verified is still anonymous. I can call 911 from a prepaid cell phone and claim to be the President of the US or the Pope. Just because I say I am the President of the US or the Pope does not make it so, and does not make me a reliable caller whose reliability is verified. I am still just as anonymous as if I had said I don't want to give my name.

AND with all of the online VOIP companies, prepaid phones, and call forwarding and such, caller ID is becoming less and less reliable.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That's an argument, which is fine. But it is not a court decision--is there one that says that such a caller is considered anonymous?

It would seem to me that, in a time-sensitive, public safety matter like an aggressive or reckless driver on a public road, the caller could be presumed not anonymous if he gives a name. If he later is shown to be anonymous (and therefore, presumed unreliable), gathered evidence could be thrown out as remedy.

But without a court case on point, what we have is an amlagam of what the cases you cite actually do say, and how you personally believe they should be extended to other circumstances.

 

[wickedsprint]

And I completely agree with that entire post. Like I have been trying to say all along: the lawfullness of the seizure of the firearm depends almost entirely upon the lawfullness of the initial stop.

I absolutely agree. I'd have to see how NC has it on the books, but I still suspect the stop was good.

This is a good debate. I'll be curious what the outcome is.

 

[Scout Dork]

De-activated cell phones still can call 911 and not give out any personal information. There are also computer programs that can give out any phone number they want.

 

[hapidogbreath]

NavyLCDR. I a RR incident you only have one party calling in. In a neighbor complaint you have both parties on hand and can talk to both of them, get statements and such. If one party if making a false report it will come out. What you are saying is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It would seem to me that, in a time-sensitive, public safety matter like an aggressive or reckless driver on a public road, the caller could be presumed not anonymous if he gives a name. If he later is shown to be anonymous (and therefore, presumed unreliable), gathered evidence could be thrown out as remedy.

And, like I posted earlier, person A calls 911 and reports person B as an aggressive or reckless driver on a public road. Police respond and after 2 minutes of following person B, they stop person B. They issue a ticket to person B for reckless driving.

In court, person A testifies they saw person B driving recklessly. Person B says, "I was not." Cop testifies, "I got a report of person B driving recklessly, so I stopped them and issued a ticket. No, I did not see person B doing anything wrong, but we got a 911 call!"

So what do you think the chances are of Person B being found guilty on no evidence other than Person A's testimony?

No, I don't have examples of court cases, probably because judges have been dismissing them all at first hearings!

 

[NavyLCDR]

If nothing else....

I guess if nothing else comes out of this, one needs to remember...when a police officer has you stopped, you really have no idea what they might be looking for. It PROBABLY, in all likelihood, is just the fact that you were speeding or rolled through a stop sign, especially if you know that you did what the officer says they stopped you for; but there might always be more to it than that.

However, if the officer stops you out of the blue, for something like tapping the fog or center line or the infamous burned out license plate light (even though both are working) and starts asking you questions about where you are coming from or where you are going...or approaches you on the street or in a restaurant, convenience store, etc....be very careful. Since we don't know who might have called 911 and reported whatever; it is, in my humble opinion, prudent to only provide the minimum information required by law (which varies from state to state). Anything more and you might be unkowingly providing corroboration of a 911 call which might raise the incident from reasonable suspicion into the realm of probable cause.

Also, if you are required to tell the officer about your gun by law, by all means do so, you have no choice. But if it is not required by law, keep in mind that by telling the officer about your gun you are extending an invitation to that officer to frisk you and seize your gun, albeit temporarily, for officer safety. Many officers like to run serial numbers of guns they have their hands on too.

Also, if you are approached by a police officer in a non-traffic stop type situation, you can clear things up quite a bit by asking, right up front, "Are you detaining me?" or "Am I free to leave?" If they say they are not detaining you or that you are free to leave, you personally have nothing to gain beyond that point by volunteering information.

People who open carry are more likely, obviously, to have need to be concerned about these things.

 

[Loosedhorse]

So what do you think the chances are of Person B being found guilty on no evidence other than Person A's testimony?

Well, it kinda depends. To continue the testimony you started:

Judge: On what basis did you issue that citation to Person B?

Officer: I stopped Person B to question him, on the strength of the 911 complaint. I observed that he was red-faced and agitated. I asked him if he knew why I stopped him, and he said, "I bet it's because that lying __________ in the Toyota said I was beeping my horn and flashing my lights and following too close--after that _________ cut me off and made me spill my coffee! LOOK AT THIS MESS!"

Info also came back that Person B had been cited for speeding two times in the past 18 months, and had been stopped just 3 weeks ago for another call about aggressive driving, at which time no citation was issued. Person A had no citations.

I concluded that Persons A's version of events was accurate and truthful, and as I am not (in this hypothetical state) bound to only cite what I see, as compared to what I may reasonably conclude after speaking to the drivers involved, I cited Person B.

Judge: Oh. Okay.​

Seems reasonable to me. Now the judge can rule on whether the citation should stand. But according to you, the officer is violating the driver's civil rights if he pulls him over to question him. Again, I do not see a reason for that conclusion in the amalgam of court decisions and argument you present.

Though I certainly grant you it would be a fine theory to present to a judge for a ruling. And then we'd know.

But the idea that a judge would rule that the legislation intended that LEOs would be unable to stop a person after receiving a 911 call that he was driving aggressively? It just seems unlikely to me that states would wish to limit police on the highways to that extent.

It should be remembered that other states (CA, MI, TN, etc) have held that there is less expectation of privacy (and therefore less protection from anonymous tips); for example:

ANONYMOUS TIP JUSTIFIES TRAFFIC STOP.

Although the rulings have not been unanimous:the United States Supreme Court “has let stand a ruling in Virginia that police officers must personally observe erratic driving before stopping a suspected drunken driver.” Not sure that I've seen that anywhere except VA.

Oh, and at least in some jurisdictions, we have an idea of how much "anonymity" is required to consider a tip "anonymous":

An anonymous 911-hangup call, traceable to a particular motel, but without sufficient information to determine which room the call may have come from

 

[NavyLCDR]

So what do you think the chances are of Person B being found guilty on no evidence other than Person A's testimony?

Well, it kinda depends. To continue the testimony you started:

Judge: On what basis did you issue that citation to Person B?

Officer: I stopped Person B to question him, on the strength of the 911 complaint. I observed that he was red-faced and agitated. I asked him if he knew why I stopped him, and he said, "I bet it's because that lying __________ in the Toyota said I was beeping my horn and flashing my lights and following too close--after that _________ cut me off and made me spill my coffee! LOOK AT THIS MESS!"

Info also came back that Person B had been cited for speeding two times in the past 18 months, and had been stopped just 3 weeks ago for another call about aggressive driving, at which time no citation was issued. Person A had no citations.

I concluded that Persons A's version of events was accurate and truthful, and as I am not (in this hypothetical state) bound to only cite what I see, as compared to what I may reasonably conclude after speaking to the drivers involved, I cited Person B.

Judge: Oh. Okay.​

Seems reasonable to me.

Of course it sounds reasonable. Also sounds reasonable to me as well. Becuase you changed the situation from the one I proposed: So what do you think the chances are of Person B being found guilty on no evidence other than Person A's testimony? You just added evidence above and beyond Person A's testimony.

 

[Leverb66]

We have digital signs on the highway here that read "Call 911 if you spot a DUI" Infuriating me! Just because you see car swerve doesn't mean it a dui. I talk to my prosecutor friend and he reassures me that a 911 alone call doesn't give an offficer cause to make a traffic stop. So NavyLCD Officer Friendly absolutely shouldn't have pulled Opie over, unless he witnessed something.