1. Navarette v. California Argued January 21, 2014

2. Fourth Amendment Text The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

3. Fourth Amendment Text The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4. Fourth Amendment Terry v. Ohio

5. Fourth Amendment Terry v. Ohio “[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.”

6. Fourth Amendment Terry v. Ohio “[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

7. Fourth Amendment Terry v. Ohio “[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

8. Fourth Amendment Terry v. Ohio Probable Cause = Search No Probable Cause = No Search

9. Fourth Amendment Terry v. Ohio Probable Cause = Search No Probable Cause & No Reasonable Suspicion = No Search Something less than Probable Cause = Abbreviated Search

10. Reasonable Suspicion The Standard Specific and articulable facts that allow rational inferences that suspect is engaged in criminal activity Reasonable Suspicion:

11. Reasonable Suspicion Tips When can tips provide reasonable suspicion? Issue:

12. Reasonable Suspicion Tips When can tips provide reasonable suspicion? Issue: Veracity, Reliability, & Basis of Knowledge Balance:

13. Reasonable Suspicion Tips Tip: anonymous letter with predictions and assertions of wrongdoing Court: totality test; PC where predictive and corroborated Illinois v. Gates, 426 U.S. 213 (1983) Tip: anonymous call with predictions and assertions of wrongdoing Court: RAS once corroborated by police Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 2325 (1990) Tip: anonymous call with observation Court: no RAS unless corroborated Possible Exception: bomb Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)

14. Reasonable Suspicion Tips Rule: detailed tip + predictions (of criminal wrongdoing) + corroboration of predictions is sufficient Illinois v. Gates, 426 U.S. 213 (1983) Rule: prediction + corroboration can suffice (even where facts are benign) Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 2325 (1990) Rule: corroboration of innocent, readily available (non-predictive) facts is not enough Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) Rule: anonymous tip of drunk driving is enough, no need for corroboration (relied on J.L. bomb dicta) People v. Wells., 38 Cal.4 th 1078 (2006)

15. Navarette v. California Reasonable Suspicion? Is there reasonable suspicion to stop a car where an anonymous 911 call alerts police that a silver Ford F-150 had run a vehicle off the road at mile marker 88 on southbound Highway 1, where police were unable to corroborate any wrongdoing? Issue:

16. Navarette v. California Reasonable Suspicion? Identity of Tipster?: (White) Detailed?: (Gates) Criminal Wrongdoing?: (White, Gates) Corroborated?: (White) “Bomb” Exception?: (J.L. Dicta) Predictive?: (White, Gates)

17. Navarette v. California Reasonable Suspicion? Identity of Tipster?: (White) Detailed?: (Gates) Criminal Wrongdoing?: (White, Gates) Corroborated?: (White) “Bomb” Exception?: (J.L. Dicta) Predictive?: (White, Gates) “The facts of this case do not require us to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability. We do not say, for example, that a report of a person carrying a bomb need bear the indicia of reliability we demand for a report of a person carrying a firearm before the police can constitutionally conduct a frisk.” (J.L., 529 U.S. at 273–74).

18. Navarette v. California Reasonable Suspicion? In the case of a tip, does the underlying crime matter, and if so, is it an exception to reasonable suspicion for extreme events, or is to be balanced with the indicia of reliability? Question:

19. Navarette v. California The Parties’ Positions Weigh veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge; extreme examples (i.e., bombs) are exceptions Navarette: Weigh veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge, should be balanced against the strength of the government interest in making the stop California:

20. Navarette v. California The Parties’ Positions Navarette: Reliable Tip = OK No Reliable Tip = Not OK Reliable Tip + Strong Gov’t Interest = OK No Reliable Tip = Not OK Weak Tip + Strong Gov’t Interest OR Strong Tip + Weak Gov’t Interest = OK California: **“Bomb” Exception = Maybe OK

21. Navarette v. California Oral Argument TESTYES RASMAYBE RASNO RAS NavaretteAssess veracity, reliability, & basis of knowledge (NO severity of offense, but maybe exception) Atomic bomb given by Al- Qaeda, headed to LA Throwing bombs out the window 911 call w/name and address Kidnapped child in the trunk CaliforniaWeigh veracity, reliability, & basis of knowledge against severity of offense X vehicle is driving “recklessly” X vehicle cut someone off Ran someone off the road, police follow for 30 minutes but see no signs Vehicle is speeding Seatbelt Violation Guy had one drink in the bar Teenager on street with a gun Federal Gov’t Similar to California Changing lanes w/out a signal Cutting someone off Seatbelt violation Rolling stop at stop sign