Alabama v. White Case Brief

Alabama v. White

496 U.S. 325 | 110 S. Ct. 2412 | 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 | 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3053

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an anonymous tip can justify a Terry stop when police corroborate sufficiently specific predictions of a suspect's future conduct, thereby supporting an inference that the tipster has reliable inside knowledge.

Background

At about 3 p.m. on April 22, 1987, a Montgomery police officer received an anonymous call reporting that Vanessa White would soon leave 235-C Lynwood Terrace Apartments in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken right taillight. The caller said White would drive to Dobey's Motel and would have about an ounce of cocaine in a brown attache case.

Officers went to the apartment complex and found a station wagon matching that description parked in front of the 235 building. They saw White leave the building, enter the car, and drive the most direct—though turn-filled—route toward Dobey's Motel. Officers stopped her shortly before she reached the motel. After White consented to a search and provided the combination to a locked brown attache case, officers found marijuana. They later found cocaine in her purse during booking.

The trial court denied White's motion to suppress. She pleaded guilty to marijuana and cocaine possession while reserving her right to appeal. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the anonymous tip did not supply the reasonable suspicion required by Terry v. Ohio and that the drugs were fruits of an unlawful stop. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether an anonymous telephone tip, corroborated by police observation of predicted innocent conduct, furnished reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding

Yes. Under the totality of the circumstances, the tip as corroborated bore sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the Terry stop.

Reasoning

An anonymous tip standing alone ordinarily does not establish either the caller's credibility or the basis of the caller's knowledge. The tip here did not itself explain why the caller was trustworthy or how the caller knew that White possessed cocaine. Thus, without further police work, it would not have justified a forcible stop.

The Court applied the totality-of-the-circstances approach used for informant tips in Illinois v. Gates, while recognizing that reasonable suspicion demands less than probable cause. Veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge remain important considerations, but the quantum and quality of information needed for a Terry stop are lower than those needed for an arrest or a warrant.

Police corroborated meaningful portions of the tip before making the stop. They found the specifically described car at the identified building, watched a woman leave that building and enter the car, and observed her drive the most direct route toward the predicted destination. Although officers did not verify every detail, including White's name, her precise apartment, or whether she would actually turn into the motel, the corroborated facts were substantial enough for the reasonable-suspicion inquiry.

The most important corroboration involved the caller's prediction of White's future behavior. A tipster's ability to forecast that a person will shortly leave a particular location, use a particular car, and take a particular route to a stated destination suggests special familiarity with that person's affairs. That apparent inside knowledge gave the police reason to credit not only the caller's prediction but also the caller's allegation of criminal activity.

This was a close case, because the tip was less detailed and police corroboration less complete than in Gates. But reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause and may rest on information that is less reliable. Taken as a whole, the verified predictions gave the anonymous report enough reliability to support the stop.

Dissents

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that the corroborated details were too ordinary to support an inference that White was carrying contraband. Many people leave home at predictable times, carry or use common items, and travel to destinations known to neighbors. Confirmation that White left the apartment building and drove toward a motel did not meaningfully corroborate the claim that a briefcase contained drugs, especially because she was not carrying the attache case when officers saw her leave.

The record did not establish why the caller knew White's expected route or destination. She may simply have traveled that route regularly, perhaps because she worked at the motel. Nor did the officers attempt to identify the caller, learn the caller's motive, or determine the source of the alleged knowledge. A person motivated by a prank or grudge could readily supply the same kind of predictive but innocent information.

The Court's rule risks allowing officers to stop citizens whenever an anonymous caller predicts conduct the officer then observes. That result weakens the Fourth Amendment's protection against unjustified seizures and leaves citizens vulnerable not only to well-intentioned officers, but also to overzealous or unscrupulous ones.