Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips.Prado Navarette v. California, No. 12–9490, 572 U.S. ___, slip. op. at 8-11 (2014). In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a "scathing" dissenting opinion, in which he argued that the tip was unreliable, and that the majority's opinion threatened the freedom and liberty of all citizens.Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court Gives Police New Power To Rely On Anonymous Tips, NPR, April 22, 2014 (characterizing Justice Scalia's dissent as "scathing"). Likewise, many commentators have noted Navarette represented a departure from earlier precedent, and that the opinion opened the door for expansive new police powers.See, e.g., Christopher D. Sommers, Presumed Drunk Until Proven Sober: The Dangers and Implications of Anonymous Tips Following Navarette v. California, 60 327, 352 (2015). Some commentators have also noted that the case leaves open several important questions, including the unanswered question of whether anonymous reports of extremely dangerous behavior require fewer indicia of reliability before police may act upon those reports.Andrew B. Kartchner, J.L.'s Time Bomb Still Ticking: How Navarette's Narrow Holding Failed to Address Important Issues Regarding Anonymous Tips, 44 1, 19–20 (2014). Other scholars have argued it was highly unlikely that Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were actually driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they were stopped by police.Joshua C. Teitelbaum, Probabilistic Reasoning in Navarette v. California, 62 158, 167 (2014) (claiming there was likely a 1/100 chance Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were driving while drunk).
Background
Fourth Amendment guidelines for traffic stops Although criminal detentions usually require reasonable suspicion that the suspect has engaged in criminal activity, an officer may conduct a traffic stop if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver is engaging in criminal activity.Berkemer v. McCarty, ; Delaware v. Prouse, ; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, ; see also Terry v. Ohio, (defining standards for investigatory stops). Officers may not rely upon a mere "hunch", but the level of suspicion required to conduct a traffic stop is “considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence”, and less than is necessary for probable cause.Terry, 392 U.S. at 27; United States v. Sokolow, . However, the Supreme Court of the United States has clarified that the reasonable suspicion required to justify a traffic stop depends upon "both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability", while taking into account “the totality of the circumstances — the whole picture.”Alabama v. White, ; United States v. Cortez, .
Fourth Amendment searches and seizures based on anonymous tips In Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court established that courts should apply a "totality of the circumstances" test to determine whether an anonymous tip is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to issue an arrest warrant.Illinois v. Gates, . Although officers in Gates did not personally witness any criminal activity, the Supreme Court held that the anonymous tip in question was reliable, because officers could verify several events predicted by the anonymous tip.Gates, 462 U.S. at 245. Seven years after Gates, the Supreme Court held in Alabama v. White that an anonymous tip was sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion to justify a temporary detention, because the tip accurately predicted several key details.Alabama v. White, . Although the Court conceded that White was a "close case", the tip in question "exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability" to justify a temporary detention.White, 496 U.S. at 332. The Court explained that if "an informant is shown to be right about some things, he is probably right about other facts that he has alleged, including the claim that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity."White, 496 U.S. at 331.
However, in Florida v. J.L., the Supreme Court ruled that police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect based on an anonymous tip “that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun.”Florida v. J.L., . The Court held that the tip "lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in White and essential to the Court’s decision in that case. The anonymous call concerning J.L. provided no predictive information, and therefore left the police without means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility.”Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. at 271. The Court declined to create a "firearm exception" for anonymous tips, but the court noted in dicta that a tip describing a bomb threat need not bear the indicia of reliability otherwise required of other anonymous tips.Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. at 273–74 ("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.”). The Supreme Court of California would later rely upon this "bomb exception" in People v. Wells, when it ruled that an anonymous tip that accurately described a vehicle “weaving all over the roadway” justified a traffic stop.People v. Wells, 38 Cal. 4th 1078, 1088 (2006). The California court held that “considerations of public safety and common sense” permit officers to conduct traffic stops based on anonymous tips "to confirm the officer’s reasonable suspicion of intoxicated driving before a serious traffic accident can occur.”Wells, 8 Cal. 4th at 1080–81, 1088.
Arrest and trial of Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette
On August 23, 2008, a California Highway Patrol ("CHP") dispatcher in Humboldt County, California received a 911 call from an anonymous caller.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 10–14. According to the dispatcher, the caller reported a silver Ford F150 pickup with the license plate number "8D94925" ran them off the highway.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 14–15. The caller stated that the truck was last seen heading southbound on California State Route 1.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 15. CHP dispatchers relayed the report to officers in the geographic area, and the vehicle was soon spotted traveling southbound at mile marker 66 near Fort Bragg, California.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 30–31. Officers pulled over the vehicle and discovered that Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette were the only occupants.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 32–35. After standing next to the cab of the pickup truck, the officers noticed "a very distinct smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle".Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 34. Officers then searched the vehicle and found four large bags containing of marijuana, an unopened box of oven bags, clippers, and fertilizer in the bed of the truck.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 35–36; Navarette, slip op. at 2.
On August 26, 2008, a felony complaint was filed in Mendocino County Superior Court, charging Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette with transportation of marijuana in violation of section 11360(a) of the California Health and Safety Code, and possession of marijuana for sale in violation of section 11359 of the California Health and Safety Code.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 2, 11. On June 26, 2009, Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because officers "lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity".Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 2; Navarette, slip op. at 2. However, the magistrate who presided over the suppression hearing, and the superior court, both rejected the motion.Joint Appendix, Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) at 1–2; Navarette, slip op. at 2. Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette subsequently pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana, and were sentenced to 90 days in prison and three years of probation.Navarette, slip op. at 2.
Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed an appeal in the California Court of Appeal, but the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.People v. Navarette, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7415 at *23–24, 32–33 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012). Relying on the "public safety" exception established in People v. Wells, the court held that "ongoing danger to other motorists [justified] the stop without direct corroboration of the vehicle's illegal activity".People v. Navarette, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS at *23 7415 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012) (citing Wells, 38 Cal. 4th at 1080). The court noted that the vehicle was traveling on an "undivided two-lane road, thus raising the risk of a collision with oncoming traffic, which poses a particular risk to human life and limb."People v. Navarette, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS at *30–31 7415 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012). However, the court also held that the "anonymous tip itself had several indicia of reliability — the content of the tip strongly suggested it came from the victim and the tipster accurately described the appearance, location and direction of the vehicle."People v. Navarette, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS at *31 7415 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012). Lorenzo and Jose appealed again to the Supreme Court of California, but the Court declined to review their case.People v. Navarette (Lorenzo Prado), 2013 Cal. LEXIS 141 (Cal., Jan. 3, 2013). They then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted their petition for certiorari on October 1, 2013.Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 50 (2013).
Opinion of the Court