Police receive an anonymous tip that Defendant was involved in a deadly conduct shooting. Tipster tells police that Defendant is in black truck and provides license plate number along with the names of the occupants. Tipster tells police that vehicle is currently driving down the highway.

Police officer stops car and detains it for 10 minutes before backup arrives. Backup officer arrives on scene and sees a shotgun in the backseat. Defendant is on probation. MTR is filed.

Do we have probable cause for the stop?

I would say you have PC, but you only need to have reasonable suspicion for a motor vehicle stop, so even if there is a determination that there is no PC, there should at least be RS.

If this was a 9-1-1 call I would try to argue that it wasn't a truly anonymous tip. See LaFave 4 SEARCHSZR sec. 9.5(h) at n.495. It would help if the information from the informant could be characterized as predictive -- but it doesn't sound like it was.

Just describing some current public information is not much corroboration. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 268-69, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (anonymous tip that "a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun" was not corroborated by police observation of three black males "hanging out" at bus stop, one wearing plaid shirt; "accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and appearance" helps police identify subject, but "does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity");

Glass v. State, 681 S.W.2d 599, 601-02 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (no probable cause where police had anonymous tip that occupants of car were involved in shooting, found car matching description near area specified in tip, and thought occupants of car appeared nervous); Ebarb v. State, 598 S.W.2d 842, 844-845 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (where defendant in car was detained and gun found in plain view, the evidence should have been suppressed as the detention was based solely on an anonymous tip and the court had no way of evaluating the reliability of the information from the anonymous source).

Davis v. State, 989 S.W.2d 859, 864-65 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, pet. ref'd) (anonymous tip reported reckless driving and possible marihuana use by "three white males" and described car, dealer's tag number, and general location; held to be uncorroborated because officer did not observe any erratic or suspicious driving and caller did not indicate why she believed the men were smoking marihuana; "[a]nyone with enough knowledge about a given person to make him the target of a prank, or to harbor a grudge against him, will certainly be able to formulate an anonymous tip hoping to initiate an investigation and perhaps a forcible stop or detention");

Com. v. Martin 705 A.2d 887, 892-93 (Pa.Super. 1997) (just finding suspect at a location where an anonymous tipster says he is not enough -- nor is police confirmation that tipster knew defendant's name).

40 Dix & Dawson, TXPRAC sec. 10.47 ("Corroboration of the informant's reliability in "identify[ing] a determinate person" is not sufficient,") OTOH, Dix seems to think State v. Stolte, 991 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.App. -- Fort Worth 1999) (placing emphasis on tipster giving plate number) is sound and it might help you.

New York courts would likely rule in your favor. People v. Jeffery, 2 A.D.3d 1271, 769 N.Y.S.2d 675
(N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept. 2003) (distinguishing Florida v. J.L. because crime was not "concealed").

[This message was edited by david curl on 12-29-08 at .]