134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014)
On August 23, 2008, a Mendocino County 911 dispatch team for the California Highway Patrol received a call from another CHP dispatcher in neighboring Humboldt County.1 The Humboldt County dispatcher relayed a tip from a 911 caller describing a silver Ford F-150 pickup with plate 8D94925 that had run the reporting party off the roadway on southbound Highway 1 near mile marker 88.2 The vehicle was last seen approximately five minutes earlier.3 The Mendocino County team recorded the tip.4 It broadcast the information to CHP officers at 3:47 p.m.5
A CHP officer heading northbound toward the reported vehicle passed the truck near mile marker 69 at 4:00 p.m.6 After making a U-turn, the officer pulled the truck over at about 4:05 p.m.7 A second officer who had separately responded to the broadcast also arrived on the scene.8 As the two officers approached the truck, they smelled marijuana.9
A search of the truck bed revealed 30 pounds of marijuana.10 The officers arrested the driver, petitioner Lorenzo Prado Navarette, and the passenger, petitioner José Prado Navarette.11 Petitioners moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.12 Both the magistrate who presided over the suppression hearing and the Superior Court denied the motion.13 Petitioners pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana and were sentenced to 90 days in jail plus three years of probation.14
The California Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.15 The court reasoned that the content of the tip indicated that it came from an eyewitness victim of reckless driving and that the officer's corroboration of the truck's description, location, and direction established that the tip was reliable enough to justify a traffic stop.16 The California Supreme Court denied review.17 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.18
Whether the 911 call bore adequate indicia of reliability for the officer to credit the caller's account?19
An anonymous tip demonstrates sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigatory stop when the caller claims eyewitness knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing.20 The report is made contemporaneously with the event under the stress of excitement.21 The use of the 911 system provides technological and regulatory safeguards that make false reporting less likely.22
Yes. The Mendocino County 911 dispatch team received the relayed tip describing a silver Ford F-150 pickup with plate 8D94925 that had run the reporting party off the roadway on southbound Highway 1 near mile marker 88.23 The team broadcast the information at 3:47 p.m.24 The caller necessarily claimed eyewitness knowledge by identifying the specific vehicle and the precise dangerous maneuver.25 The officer located the matching truck near mile marker 69 at 4:00 p.m.26 This confirmed the report occurred soon after the incident with little opportunity for fabrication.27
The 911 system's recording capability and traceability features further supported the tip's reliability under the totality of the circumstances.28
The 911 call bore adequate indicia of reliability for the officer to credit the caller's account.29
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, And Kagan, Jj.
Justice Scalia dissented.30 He argued that the anonymous tip lacked any indicia of reliability.31 The caller provided no name, phone number, or location.32
The police had no basis to credit the accusation of being run off the road.33 He emphasized that the tipster's ability to describe the truck's make, model, and license plate was information available to any observer.34 This did not corroborate the claim of dangerous driving, unlike the predictive details in Alabama v. White.35
Scalia further rejected reliance on 911 traceability.36 The tipster's belief in anonymity controls behavior.37 Nothing showed the caller knew identification was possible.38
He concluded the tip was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.39
Whether the reported conduct of running another vehicle off the road created reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated?40
Yes. The 911 caller reported that the silver Ford F-150 pickup had run her off the roadway near mile marker 88.43 This specific and dangerous result suggests lane-positioning problems, decreased vigilance, or impaired judgment characteristic of drunk driving.44 The California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court recognized that such conduct is strongly correlated with intoxication based on the accumulated experience of officers and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidance.45
Although the behavior might alternatively be explained by driver distraction, the totality of the circumstances still supported reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime.46
The reported conduct of running another vehicle off the road created reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated.47
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, And Kagan, Jj.
Justice Scalia argued that the tip alleged only a single instance of irregular driving that did not raise a likelihood of intoxication.48 The conduct could have been caused by swerving to avoid an animal, a pothole, or distraction from a cell phone or passenger.49 He calculated that only a tiny fraction of careless driving incidents involve drunk drivers.50
Scalia concluded that the officers lacked any objective basis to suspect ongoing intoxicated driving rather than a discrete past episode of recklessness.51
Whether the officer's failure to observe additional suspicious conduct during the short period he followed the truck dispelled reasonable suspicion of drunk driving?52
An officer who already possesses reasonable suspicion of drunk driving need not personally observe additional violations or surveil the vehicle for an extended period before executing a stop.53 The appearance of a marked patrol car may cause more careful driving.54 The reasonableness of the stop does not turn on the availability of less intrusive techniques.55
No. The CHP officer passed the truck near mile marker 69 at 4:00 p.m. He made a U-turn. He stopped it at approximately 4:05 p.m. This was a period of only five minutes during which no further violations were observed. The Supreme Court held that this brief interval was insufficient to dispel the suspicion generated by the reliable tip.56 The officer was not required to wait for additional suspicious conduct before acting.57
The Court noted that allowing a potentially intoxicated driver a second chance could produce disastrous consequences.58
The officer's failure to observe additional suspicious conduct during the short period he followed the truck did not dispel reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.59
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, And Kagan, Jj.
Justice Scalia contended that the five-minute period of irreproachable driving affirmatively undermined any suspicion of ongoing intoxication.60 The hallmarks of drunk driving are difficult to conceal and the driver showed none of them.61 He argued that if the tip had suggested ongoing criminality, the clean driving should have discredited the accusation.62
This is just as an officer seeing no cannabis in a truck cab would discredit a tip about visible bales of marijuana.63 Scalia maintained that the Fourth Amendment therefore required the officers to leave the petitioners alone.64