The Honor able Rober t H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0440n.06 No. 09-5263 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. BA RRY MCKNI GHT, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fore : SI L ER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; CL EL AND, District Judge
. *
S UT T ON , Circuit Judge
. Ba rry McKnig ht ple d g uilty to be ing a felon in posse ssion of a firea rm afte r the district cour

t denied his motion under the F ourth Amendment to suppress some of the evidenc e ag ainst him. McKnig ht now exercises his rig ht under the ple a ag ree ment to appea l that decision. B eca

use the police possessed ample inf ormation indicating that McKnig ht had committed
a c ri me , w e a ff

ir m.
I.
On Ne w Y e a

r’ s E ve 20 06 , Se rg e ant Jos e phTo we rs , a n 11-y ear ve te ra

n o f t he Na sh vil le Police Depa

rtment, rec eived a call from a poli ce dispatcher, informing him that a caller had repor tedNo. 09-5263

USA v. M cKnight

- 2 - a man with a gun at 151 Univer sity Court. The re port did not surprise Towe rs. I n his ex perie nce, vio le nt c ri me re g ula

rl y pla g ue d th e Un ive rs ity

Court pu bli c ho us ingc omp le x, and he f re qu e ntl y hear d repor

ts of “pe rsons with wea

pons” duringNew Y ear ’s Eve c elebr ations. This y ear proved no dif fe re nt: Er

ratic g un fi re oc c ur

re d thro ug ho ut t

he e ve nin g a t U niv e rs ity

Court . As Towers pu ll ed u

p to 15 1 U niv e rs ity

Court aro un d mi dn ig ht, the dis patc he r g a ve him more infor

mation. The initial c all arose from a domestic dispute, during which a ma n with a shotg un threatened the caller
. The recor d does not reve al whether t he caller, Roni sha S mith, disclosed her
name to the police, but it does show that she identified he rself a s McKnig ht’s g irlfriend a nd told the po lic e that, a ft e r M c Kn ig ht p ull e d a shot g un on he r, sh e ra n fr om the a

pa rtme nt at 15 1 U niv e rs ity Court to 6 3 Ca rr oll Str e e t ( a

bu ild inga c ro ss f

ro m 15 1 U niv e rs ity

Court ) wh ere she c a lle d th e m. Smit h g ave the police a phy sical desc ription of her assailant—a black male wearing black pa nts and
a wh ite sh ir

t—a nd on e thi ngmor e : th e a ssa ila nt’ s n a me , B arr

y Mc Kn ig ht.
Ar me d w iththi s in fo rm a tio n, To we rs wa ite d f or ano the r o ff

ic e r t o a rr ive so the y

c ou ld appro a c h U n iv e r s it

y Co u rt t o g e th e r . A s h e w a it e d , s o me o n e matc h in g th e a s s a il an t’ s d e s c r iption walked be tween 151 U niversity Court and 63 C arr oll St ree t. Towers c alled out, “B arr y ,” and the man walked over to him. At that point, Towers a sked him, “Are y ou Ba rry McKnig ht? ” to which he re sponded, “y es.” R.31 at 32.
To we rs ha

nd c uf fe d M c Kni ght and re a d h im h is Miranda ri g hts . In r e sp on se to T ow e rs ’ subsequent questions, McKnig ht said he owne d a shot g un and ag ree d to take the police to the g un.No. 09-5263

USA v. M cKnight

- 3 - McKnig ht led Tower s and some other office rs to the apartment at 151 Univer sity Court and showed them his shotgun. A g rand jury

indicted McKnig ht for beinga fe lon in possession of a fire arm. McK night moved to suppress the shotg un (and other evidence obtained from his apar tment) on the g round that his init ial arr est was unlaw ful. The district c ourt denied his motion. McKnig ht pled g uilty to being a fe lon in possession of a fir ea rm , re s er v ing his rig ht in the plea ag ree ment to appea l the district
c ourt ’s de nia l of

his mot ion

to s up pr e ss.
II.
Th e F ourt h A me ndme nt p ro te c ts “ the ri g ht o f t he peo pl e” t o b e fr e e fr om “ un re a so na ble
se arc he s and

se izur e s. ” U. S. Co ns t. a me nd . I V; Ma

pp v . O hio , 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Consistent wi th t his langua g e , offi cers may arr e st— se ize —a

n in div idu a l in

pu bli c wh e n th e y

have pr ob a

ble
cause to believe the i n d i vidual committed a cr ime. At wat e r v . Ci ty

of L ago V

ist a , 532 U.S. 318 (2001); United States v. W atson , 4 23 U. S. 4 11 (1 97 6) . T he ha llm ark of pro bab le c a us e is “re asonably

trustworthy

information . . . suffic ient to warr ant a prudent man in believing that [t he defe ndant has] committed or [i s] commi tting an of fense .” B e c k v . O hio , 3 7 9 U.S . 89, 91 (1964). Certainty is not required; a

“fa ir probability ” will suffice
. Illinois v. Gates , 4 6 2 U. S . 213, 238 (1983).
The dist rict court deeme d Serg eant Tow ers’ testimony about the eve nts of New Y ear ’s Eve
cre dible, and McK

night of fer s no basis for second-guessing that finding . Once Tower s’ ver sion ofNo. 09-5263

USA v. M cKnight

- 4 - the fa cts is acc epted, it does not take extensive analy sis to conclude that Towe rs had suff icient inf or ma tio n to arr e st M c Kn ig ht.
Smith tol d the po lic e that he r b oy fr ie nd ha d thre a te ne d h e r w itha sh otgun a t 15 1 U niv e rs ity Court. A crime vic tim’s stateme nt ge nera lly will suffice to e stablish probable c ause, see U nited States v. Shaw , 464 F.3d 615, 623 ( 6th Cir. 2006), to sa y nothing of

proof be y ond a re asonable doubt in some settings, se e Un ite d S tat es v . A rn old , 4 86 F .3 d 1 77 , 1 80 –8 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 7) (e n b anc ). Smith g a ve a de sc ri pti on

of he r boy fr ie nd (a bla c k mal e we ari ng bla c k pants and a wh ite sh ir t) and his name (B arr y McKnig ht). Tower s’ own obser vations conf

i rm ed Smith’s statement. He saw a man matching this description walking toward 151 U niversity Court (the location of the assault) fr om 63 Carroll Street ( the location to which the vic tim fled). The ma n wore a light-w eig ht shirt despite the colder weather, and unlike many of t he people who passed throug h University Court that night, he was on foot. B oth fac ts ga ve Towe rs re ason to believe that McKnig ht h ad just come from the housing c omplex . Most critically , when Tower s called out to the man, he answe red to “ Ba rry” and
c on fi rm e d h e wa s Ba

rr y Mc Kn ig ht. Al l to ld, the se c ir c ums tanc e s amou nte d to re a so na

bly re lia ble information that McKnig ht had committed a cr ime.
Mc Kn ig ht r e sis ts this c on c lus ion , a rguin g that Fl or ida v . J

.L. , 529 U.S. 266 (2000), de mands
mor e wh e n a

n a no ny mou s p ho ne c a lle r r e po rt s a c ri me . T he re c or d do e s no t r e ve a l w he the r S mith g a ve he r n a me to t

he police dis patc he r, bu t, e ve n if we a ssume sh e did

no t, t hat is no re a so n to discount the phone c all—a victim’s phone c all—in this i nstance . T h e ri sk prese nted by an anony mous tip is that the pol ice have no rec ourse when t he ti p is false and fe w g rounds for ve rifyingNo. 09-5263

USA v. M cKnight

- 5 - it. How can the police ar

rest someone for providing a false lead if they don’t know who it is? And h o w c ant h e p o l i c e v e r i f

y th e b a s e s f

o r t h e ti p s te r ’ s k n o w l e d g e i f t h e y d o n ’ tkn o w w h o m t o a s k ? Se e Fl or ida v . J

.L. , 5 29 U. S. at 27 0; United States v. May , 399 F.3 d 8 1 7 , 824–25 (6th Cir. 2005). But these cauti o n ar y

considerations are just that: considerations. They do not establish an unbending require ment that the police may never rely on anony mous phone ca lls. See G ates , 462 U.S. at 230. The poli ce acted r easona

bly here . This “tip,” for sta

rters, w as not just “a ca ll made from a n unknown location by

an unknown c aller” involving an unknow n victim. Fl or ida v . J .L. , 5 29 U. S.
a t 27 0. Th e ph on e c a ll c on c e rn e d a re po rt of c ri min a l a c tiv ity

a g a ins t her. Smit h g ave the police her loc ation—acr oss fr o m the cr ime scene —and identified he rself a s McKnig ht’s g irlfriend. The police re adily

could have found S mith based on this information had they neede d to. Nothing in the
rec ord, moreove r, sug g ests that Smit h ref used t o g ive her name, only that at most an administrative
e rr or oc c ur re d be c a us e no on e a sk e d for he r name and sh e ne ve r vol un te e re d it . A dd to a ll o f t his the spec ific and c oncre te nature of Smith’s information—identify i n g M cK night by name a nd de sc ri bin g his c lot

hin g and loc a tio n— and

it i s c le ar t

hat th e po lic e a c te d re a so na bly in r e lyingon

thi s inf or ma tio n to arr e st M c Kn ig ht w he n h e a c kn ow le dg e d th a t w a s w ho he wa s.
M c K n i g h ta t t a c k s t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f S m i t h ’ s r e p o rtf

o r an o t h e r r e a s o n : i t a ro se fr om a do me sti c dis pu te . B ut o ff ic e rs are un de r n o o bli g a tio n to take a vic tim ’s state me nts le

ss se ri ou sly when the vic tim knows her assailant. Se e Ar no ld , 4 86 F .3 d at 1 80 –8 1; Un ite d S tat es v . H ar ne ss , 453 F .3 d 7 52 , 7 54 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; Ah le rs v . S c he bil , 1 88 F .3 d 3 65 , 3 70 (6 th C ir
. 19 99 ). Th e sp e c if ic ityNo. 09-5263

USA v. M cKnight

- 6 - of Smith’s identification makes the re port of cr iminal activity more cre dible, not less so. Sm ith’s phone ca ll arose c redibly

from (a nd in the m idst of) a

n alleg ed phy sical conf

rontation, as opposed to (less cre dibly) an out-of-the blue repor t invoking an estra

ng ed par tner’s pa st wrong s. Cf. United S ta te s v . P h illips , 727 F.2d 392, 397 ( 5th Cir. 1984). Might Towe rs have allowed Mc Knig ht, a po ssi bly arm e d ass a ila

nt, to co nti nu e on his wa

y thr ou g h a hig h- c ri me pu bli c ho us ingc omp le x, so Tower s could furthe r investig ate the tips re liability ? Sure, but the F ourth Amendment doe s not require him to take that risk. See City of Ontario v. Quon , No. 08–1332, ____ U.S. ____, slip op. at 14–15 (June 17, 2010).
Mc Kni ght ins ist s th a t e xcu lpator y inf or ma tio n— his c oo pe ra

tiv e be havio r a

nd c a lm de me ano r— dim ini sh e s th e e vid e nc e of pr ob a ble c a us e . Th e fi rs t pr ob le m w iththi s a rgume nt i s a
a chronolog ical one: Most of McK night’ s cooper ation with Serg eant Tow ers oc curr ed aft e r Tower s handcuf fed him. B eca

use we assess proba

ble ca use base d on what the of

fice rs knew at the time of
an a rr e st, mos t of

Mc Kn ig ht’ s e vid e nc e —h is c on se nt t o s e arc h th e a pa rtme nt , his a dmi ssi on

to owning a shot g un—does not undermine the probable -ca use finding
. See F

ridley v. H

orrighs , 291 F.3d 867, 874–75 ( 6th Cir. 2002). McKnig ht adds that he calmly responde d when Tow ers c alled out his name , th e n c on fi rm e d h is n a me wh e n T ow e rs a sk e d h im t o d o s o, su g g e sti nghe ha d n oth ingto hide. B u t th a t is a p o te n ti a l in f e r e n c e , n o t a n e c e s s ar

y o n e . Wh il e f

le e in g f r o m an o f

f ic e r may suffice to arouse a

n office r’s re asonable suspicions, Illinois v. W ardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000),
c o o p e r a ti n g w it

h a no f f ic e r d o e s n o t n e c e s s ar il y

d im in is h o th e r

e v id e n c e o f

w r o n g doing, c

f. Sc hn e c k lot h v . B us tam on te , 41 2 U. S. 21 8, 22 0 (1 97 3) . O the rw ise , o ff ic e rs wo uld

have to e sta

bli shNo. 09-5263

USA v. M cKnight

- 7 - a hig her standa

rd of pr obable cause (or for that matter rea sonable suspicion) f or ca lm or seasone d criminals. That si mply is not the case. See U nited States v. Fisher, 364 F.3d 970, 973–74 ( 8th Cir. 2004).
Be cause the police ha d proba b l e ca u se to arr est McKnig ht, we nee d not revisit the district
c ourt ’s ru lin g that T ow e rs arr e ste d M c Kn ig ht w he n h e ha nd c uf fe d h im a nd re a d M c Kn ig ht h is Miranda rig hts. O nce the office rs had the requisite probable cause , they had th e c o n s t i tutional authority to a

rre st Mc Knig ht ( the district c ourt’s cha rac terization of the enc ounter) or to d e ta in h im under Te rry

v . O hio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (the g overnme nt’s char acte rization of the encounte r). Either
wa y , th e of fi c e rs did no t vi olate Mc Kn ig ht’ s F ourt h A me ndme nt r ig hts
. III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.