496 U.S. 325 (1990)
On April 22, 1987, at approximately 3 p.m., Corporal B. H. Davis of the Montgomery Police Department received a telephone call from an anonymous person. The caller stated that Vanessa White would be leaving 235-C Lynwood Terrace Apartments at a particular time in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right taillight lens broken. The caller further stated that she would be going to Dobey’s Motel and that she would be in possession of about an ounce of cocaine inside a brown attaché case.1
Corporal Davis and his partner, Corporal P. A. Reynolds, proceeded to the Lynwood Terrace Apartments. The officers saw a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken right taillight in the parking lot in front of the 235 building. The officers observed respondent leave the 235 building, carrying nothing in her hands, and enter the station wagon. They followed the vehicle as it drove the most direct route to Dobey’s Motel.2
When the vehicle reached the Mobile Highway, on which Dobey’s Motel is located, Corporal Reynolds requested a patrol unit to stop the vehicle. The vehicle was stopped at approximately 4:18 p.m., just short of Dobey’s Motel. Corporal Davis asked respondent to step to the rear of her car, where he informed her that she had been stopped because she was suspected of carrying cocaine in the vehicle. He asked if they could look for cocaine, and respondent said they could look. The officers found a locked brown attaché case in the car, and, upon request, respondent provided the combination to the lock. The officers found marijuana in the attaché case and placed respondent under arrest. During processing at the station, the officers found three milligrams of cocaine in respondent’s purse.3
Respondent was charged in Montgomery County Court with possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine. The trial court denied respondent’s motion to suppress, and she pleaded guilty to the charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed her conviction. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the State’s petition for writ of certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for certiorari.4
Whether the anonymous telephone tip, as corroborated by independent police work, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop?5
Reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop is a less demanding standard than probable cause and is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, considering both the quantity and quality of information from an anonymous tip and its corroboration by independent police work; factors such as the tipster’s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge remain highly relevant, and significant corroboration of predictive details can impart reliability to the tip as a whole.6
Yes. The anonymous tip supplied detailed predictions of White’s future conduct, including her departure time from a specific apartment building, her use of a described vehicle with a broken taillight, her destination at Dobey’s Motel, and her possession of cocaine in a brown attaché case.7 Officers independently corroborated the vehicle’s location and description in the parking lot, White’s emergence from the 235 building and entry into the station wagon, and her travel along the most direct route to the motel, thereby confirming the tipster’s access to inside information about White’s itinerary.8 Although White was not carrying the attaché case when observed, the stop occurred just short of the motel.9
Nevertheless, the verified predictive elements were sufficient under the totality of the circumstances to establish the lesser quantum of suspicion required for an investigatory stop.10
The anonymous tip, as corroborated by independent police work, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop.11
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan And Justice Marshall
An anonymous tip predicting ordinary commuter behavior supplies no reliable indication of criminal activity.12 This is particularly true when the person is not even carrying the attaché case described by the tipster.13 The record revealed nothing about the tipster’s identity, motive, or basis of knowledge.14
The tipster may well have been another police officer who had a hunch that respondent might have cocaine in her attaché case.15 Anybody with enough knowledge about Vanessa White to make her the target of a prank, or to harbor a grudge against her, will certainly be able to formulate a tip about her like the one predicting her excursion.16 In addition, under the Court’s holding, every citizen is subject to being seized and questioned by any officer who is prepared to testify that the warrantless stop was based on an anonymous tip predicting whatever conduct the officer just observed.17
This decision makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment protection against arbitrary seizures.18