## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1259 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . L O NN IE W HIT AKER, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 C R 123

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge

.
A RGUED S EPT EMBER 3, 2008

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 27, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, C ircu it Judge. W h en L onni e W hi tak er ’ s ca r w as sea rched , a p ol i ce o ffi cerf ound a gun. M r. W hi tak er was s ubs eque nt l y c ha r g ed wi thunl awful l y po ss es sing a fi re ar m and am m unit i on a s a convi cted fel on, i n vi ol at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 )
. He fi l e d a mo t i o n to supp re ss the gun obta i n ed f ro m hi s ca r. The m agi str ate j ud ge, after hol ding an ev i denti ar y hea ri ng, r eco m m ended th at th e d istri ct cou rt de ny the m o t io n . Th e d istri ct cou rt2 N o. 08

- 1259

The j ur i s di c t i ono fthe di s t r i c tc ou r ti s ba s e d o n 1 8 U. S
. C. 1 § 3231. The juri sdic ti on of thi s court i s based on 28 U

. S. C. § 1291. 2 W e b a se o u r r e n d i t i o n o f t h e fa c t s o n th e m a g i st r a t e ju d g e ’s 3 rep or t, w hich w as ad op ted b y the d istrict cou rt. adopted the m agi str ate j u d ge’ s r epor t. M r. W hi tak er p led guil ty, but re ser ved hi s r i ght t o appeal the advers e d ecision on h is sup p ression m otion. T he district cou rt sentenced M r. W hi tak erto 41 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent; 1 Mr
. Wh i t a k e r fi l e d a t i me l y n o t i c e o fa p p e a l

. Bec a u s e we 2 bel iev e that the di str i ct c ourtco rr ectl y dete rm i ned that th e search w as bas ed on reason abl e s u sp ici on, w e affirm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I B AC KGR OUND A . Facts 3 On J une 1 7, 2 00 7, s ho r tl y be f o r e 8: 00 p. m . , a n a no ny m o us i nd i vi du alcal l ed 911 to r epor t a l oud argum ent in a foo d sto re park i ng l ot. Th e c aller sta ted thathe was unabl e t o getcl ose to the ar gum en t an d , c onse quentl y, di d not k no w th e numbero fi ndi vi dual s i nv o l ve d o r the i r g en der s. He di d s ta te , ho wev er, tha t, a t the sc en e o fthe al ter cati on, there w er e a t l eas t t w o peopl e s tandi ng by a c ar , “tw o m ale s, th at I c an se e.” R . 32. L at er in th e c all, he descr ibed them as “pre ttygo od- si zed bl ack guys. ” Id. A se cond m an c alle d 9 11 soo n after
. H e r epor ted a m an w i th a gun i n the sam e par ki ng l ot. Thi s s eco nd cal l erN o. 08

- 1259 3

A cco rd ing to O fficer Jo sw iak ’ s testim on y , an “ale rt ton e” is 4 a lou d tw o-ton e frequ en cy tha t ind icates to officers tha t a cal l cam e i n involving w eapons. R. 23 at 14. i denti fi ed hi m sel fas “Tr avi s” and p ro vid ed the oper ato r w ith a p hone num ber

. Tra vi s s tat ed that he had bee n shopping w hen he s aw hi s fem ale cousi n and her boy

frie n d , L on n ie, ar gu in g. L on n i e w a s st an d in g n ex t t o h is silv er ca r; T ra vis ’ co u sin st oo d n ex t to h er b lu e va n . Tr av is r epo r te d th at “we pul l ed up t o a skwas s he a l l r i g hta nd he pull ed a gun on us! ” Id. Tra vi s’ co usi n urge d them to l eave , wh i ch theydi d. Travi s then cal l ed 911

. A fterthe fi rs t ca l l to 91 1, the po lice dis patcheral er ted unit s i n the ar ea. Pol i ce offi cer s Cale b Bed f or d, C h ad J oswia k a nd BeckyOver l and headed, each sep ar ate l y, toward the parking l ot. A s the o ffi cer s were en r ou te to th e sc en e, “ alert to ne s” wento ffo n the r adi o , a nd the 4 dispat cheri nfo rm ed them thata seco nd cal l erhad rep orted that a black m an and a b lack w om an w ere ar g ui ngi n a s i l ve r c ari n the pa r k ing lot and tha t th e m an had dis pla yed a hand gun. The o ffi cer s did not know any o fthe othe r i nfo rm ati on pro vi ded by Tra vi s. The offi cer s e asi l y w er e abl e to l oca te a si l vercarpark ed neara van i n the southwest co rnero fthe park i ng l ot. O fficer B e d ford arrived first and pa rked near th e car, wh i c h a c t u a l l y wa s a g r ay Che v r o l e tI mpa l a . He st eppe d o uto fhi s squ ad ca r a nd wal k ed to war d the dri ver ’ s s i de ofthe Ch evr ol et I m p al a. The dri verst epped out ofthe vehi cl e to fa ce Offi cerBedfo rd. Offi cerJ oswia k a r r i v e d a nd b e g a n wa l k i ngt o wa r d the p as s e ng e r s i de of the car.4 N o. 08

- 1259

Th e r e c or d i s un c l e a r whe t he r Mr. W hi t a ke r r e s po nd e d. 5 O ffice r B ed for d a sk ed th e m an , soo n id en tifie d as L on n ie W hi tak er, i fhe a nd the w om an were havi ng an ar gum ent. 5 Of fi ce r Be df o r d s aw no th i ngi n M r . W hi ta k er ’ s ha nds a nd as k ed M r . W hi ta k erf o r pe r m i ssi on to fr i skf o r a wea po n. A fterr ecei vi ng per m i ssi on, he fri ske d M r. W hi tak er an d f o und n o wea po n. The femal e pas se ng er, s o o n i den ti fi ed as Kei sh a M ar sh, ste pp ed out of the c arto f ace Offi cerJ oswia k. H e o bser ved that she was cr yi ng and that s h e had l ar ge w et ci rcl es on both shou lders of he r sh irt, w hich he p resu m e d w ere f r o m t ea r s. Offi ce r Josw ia ka sk ed M ar shi fs he a nd M r . W hi ta k erha d b een a r g ui ngo r fi g ht i ng ; s he r e s p o n d e d th a t th e y h a d b e e n a r g u i n g i n the c ar . He as k ed M arsh whethe r “ ev er y th i ngwas a l r i g hti n the vehi cl e, ” a nd she sai d y es. R. 20, Ex
. 2 a t 6
. Offi cerJ oswia k a s k e d Ma r s h i fthe r e wa s a nyp r ob l e m whe r e s o me ty pe of w eap on h ad bee n i n v olved ; she resp ond ed that there w as not, and that ther e had j ust be en an ar gum ent b etween he r a nd M r. W hi ta k er . W he n a sk ed, s he s ta te d tha t sh e ha d no wea po ns . Offi ce r J o sw iak p att ed he r do wn, b ut f ound no w eapons. Offi cerJ oswia k announced to M ar sh that he w as going to do a w eapons sw eep of the pass engerco m partm ent o f the c ar . M ar sh sa id n othing but m ai ntai ned her posi ti on b loc kin g t h e p as se n ge r-s id e d oo r. O ffice r Jos w iak p h ys ica l ly gui ded M ar sho uto fthe way a nd s ea r ch ed th e ca r ; he f o und a b l ac ks emi au to m ati c ha nd g un in the cen ter con sole. Offi cer B ed ford th en arrested M r. W hi ta k er .N o. 08

- 1259 5 Lat er, a fte r M r . W hi ta k erha d b ee n c o nv ey ed to a de te nti on f aci l i ty, Offi cerJ oswia k c ontac ted the fi rs t 9 11 cal l er atthe numbe r listed i n the r ec o r ds. S pea k i ngwi ththe fi rs t ca l l er, Offi cerJ oswia k was abl e t o cor ro bor ate M r. W hi t a k e r ’ s b ui l d a nd wha t he wa s we a r i ng . Th e f i rs t cal l er al so sta ted that, i n add i ti on to tw o m en ar gu ing, the r e was a thi r d pe r so n s ea te d i n the fr o nt passenge r sea t o fthe car . Offi cerJ oswia k w as u n abl e t o re ach the seco nd cal l er w ho had i denti fi ed hi m self as Travi s, alt h ou gh the o ffi cerr eached a voi ce m ai l bo x f or “Sm okey.” Det ectives la ter w ere able to l ocat e and int ervi ew thi s s eco nd cal l er d es pit e the f act that he had gi ven a fal se na m e and ph one nu m ber.

II DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s l ega l analy sis o n a m oti on t o s up pr e s s de nov o. U nited Sta tes v. R iley, 49 3 F
. 3d 803, 808 (7th Cir. 2007). Pu re find ings of f act, how ever, are re vie w e d f or cle ar err or . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fa i s on , 19 5 F
. 3d 890, 893 (7th C ir. 1999).

A. M r. W hi tak ersubm i ts that t he pol i ce di d not hav e re aso nabl e s uspici on t o bel ieve thata cri m e had be en c om m itt ed . H e con te n d s t h at th e p olic e la c ke d rea so n ab le su spi ci o n t o c o nduc t a se ar cho fthe c ar f o r wea po ns because t h e 91 1 ca l l eri denti fi ed as “Trav i s” w as anonym ou s. H e n ot es th at T ra vis int en d ed to co n c ea l h is6 N o. 08

- 1259 i den ti tya nd was s ucc essful indo i ngs o , unde r m i ni ng the re l i abi l i ty of the 911 cal l

. M r. W hi tak erfu rther subm i ts that the fi rs t a nonym ou s p hone ca l l was to o va gu e t o c or ro b or at e T ra vis ’ lat er ca ll. M r. W h i tak erfurtherco ntends thatthe pol i ce di d not ob se rv e a ny be havi orthatj usti fi ed a Ter ry p at -d ow n . See Ter ry v. O hio , 39 2 U.S
. 1, 30 ( 1968 )
. I n hi s v i ew , the anonym ous ti p coul d no t be a val i d b asi s for th e sear ch b ec au se th e in for m at ion w as n ot v e r ified ind ep en d en tly b y t h e p olic e. S e eF l o r i d a v . J
. L. , 5 29 U
. S. 26 6, 27 2 ( 2000 ) ; A labam a v. White, 49 6 U.S
. 32 5, 33 2 ( 1990 )
. M r. W hi tak er d i s t i ng u i s h e s th i s c a s e fr o m U ni t e d S t at e s v. D r ake, 45 6 F. 3d 771 ( 7th Ci r. 2 006) , i n w hi ch the cal l erto 91 1 i denti fi ed her sel fby herfi rs t a nd la st nam e, st aye d on the s c e ne u nt i l the p o l i c e a r r i v e d a nd p r o v i de d d e t a i l ed in for m at ion to th e o p e ra to r. Id. at 772- 74. H e no tes that, i n thi s ca se , Tr avis p ro vi ded a f al se na m e an d pho ne n u m b er . H e poi nts out that Travi s f ai l ed to provi de a con tem p oran eou s d escrip tion o f an em ergen cy or a d et aile d ac c o u n t o fth e s u sp ec t c ar , an d d id n ot rem ain at the s cene. M r . W hi ta k erfur th ers ubmi ts tha t, ev en i fthe s ec o nd caller can not be ch aract erized as anon ym ou s, th e officers sti l l l acke d col lec ti ve knowle dge o fthe detai l s o fTra vi s’ cal l atthe ti m e o fthe sea rch. H e a cknowle dges that, under th e co l l ec ti ve know l edg e do ct r i ne , l aw e nf o r ce m en t offi cer s a re co nsi dered to poss es s i nfo rm ati on know n to ot h e r o f f i c er s b u t n ot kn ow n to th em . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lenoir, 31 8 F
. 3d 72 5, 728 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( hol ding that w hen pol i ce offi cer s a re i n com m unica ti on r ega rdi ng a suspect, “the kno w l edge o fo ne o ffi cercan be im pu ted toN o. 08

- 1259 7 the o thero ffi cer s under the c ol l ecti ve knowle dge doctr i ne ” )
. Ne v e r the l e s s , he s ub mi t s tha t the do c t r i ne does not apply to knowle dge thatci vi l i an 91 1 o perat or s do not sh ar e w ith th e o ffice rs . Se eU nit e d S t at e s v. Col on , 25 0 F. 3d 130, 137 ( 2d Cir
. 2001 ) ( hol ding that a 911 op er ato r w as n ot ca p ab le of d et er m in in g w h et h er rea so n a b le su sp ici on ex isted f or a stop an d frisk)

. I n M r. W hitake r’s view , at the tim e of th e search , the offi cer s w ere aw are o nl y tha t a m anand a woman we r e i n a s i l ve r c ara nd th at a w ea p on w as inv olv ed . H e c on c lu d es t h a t t h is inform ation w as n o t p red ictive and that i t the refore coul d not be u sed to estab l i sh reas onabl e suspici on under J
. L. , 52 9 U.S
. at27 1- 72. The Gover nm ent take s a d i ff er ent vi ew . I t co ntends that th e d i str i ct c ourtwas cor re ct in deter m i ni ng tha t J.L. is no t r el ev an t be ca us e th atc as e dea l t wi thwhethe r the in itia l s t op w as j usti fi ed. I t e m phasi zes thatther e ca n be tw o sta ges to a Terrys t o p: the a c t ua l s t o p i t s el fan d a p ro te c tiv e p at -d ow n se ar c h

. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . B r own , 2 32 F
. 3 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 )
. B e c a u s e th e h o l d i ng i n J .L. is l i m i te d t o a n a ctua l s top , s ubmi ts the Go ve r nm en t, the r e a s o n i ng i n J .L. i s no t a pp l i cabl e t o thi s ca se; thi s ca se conce r ns o nl y the l e g a l i t y o fa s e a r c h o r p r o t e c t i v e s we ep afte r a c o nsen su al en co unt ero fthe po l i ce wi ththe de f en d an t. J
. L. , 529 U
. S. at274. The Governm ent s ubm i ts that th e o nl y i ss ue i s whether, unde r a n o bj ec ti ve t es t, the p oli ce offi cers h ad a reasona b le su sp ici on th at M r. W h it a k er h ad a gu n in h is p os se ss ion
. Br own , 23 2 F
. 3d at 594. In th e G overn m en t’s view , the d istri c t cou rt id e nt ified “sp ecifi c, articu lable susp ici ons ” tha t M r. W h ita ke r p os se ss ed a gu n . A p p elle e B r. at 14 . W h en T ra vis ca l l ed 91 1, he i d en ti fi ed hi m se l fa s M ar sh ’ s co us i n, a nd8 N o. 08

- 1259 described an encounter i n w hi ch M r. W hi tak er had w aved hi m aw ay w i th a hand gun. This cal l alon e, conte nd s the Governm ent, was enough t o est abl i sh ar ti cul abl e s uspici on. I t furthera gr ees w i th the di str i ct c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a tth e fi r s tc a l l e r p r o v i d e d s o me m in im al c or ro b or at ion
. SeeW hite, 49 6 U.S
. at33 1. T he Go vern m en t fu r t he r sub m its that, contra ry to M r. W h ita ke r’s arg u m en t, th i s ca se d oe s n ot inv olv e t ru ly an on ym ou s c alle rs be c au se th e p olic e w er e a b le t o t alk to bo th 91 1 c alle rs aft er th e fa c t a n d be c au se T ra vis id en tified h im se lf as M ar s h ’s c ou sin
. Se eD r ake, 45 6 F
. 3d at 774. I t a l s o a g r e e s wi th the di s t r i c t c o ur t tha t the 91 1 dispat chersho uld be co nsi dered an i ntegr alpa rto f the invest i gat i ve proce ss f orp urpose s o fthe col l ecti ve knowle dge doctr i ne. M or eov er, subm i ts the Gove rnm ent, co rr obo ra ti on o f Travi s’ st ate m ents oc curr ed w hen the offi cer s a rr i ved at th e par k i ngl o t, a nd o bs er ve d the make a nd c o l o r o fthe ca r, i ts l o ca ti o n i n the pa r k i ngl o t, i ts prox i m i tyt o the bl ue van and that tw o peopl e w er e in the c ar . M ar sh al so confi rm ed that she a n d M r. W hi tak erhad bee n ar gui ng. The Governm ent c onte n d s that herr el uctance to mov e a wa y f r o m the c a r do o r g a v e Offi c e r J o s wi ak a re aso n to be suspi ci ous.

B. T h e F o u r th Ame n d me n t t o th e C o n s t i t u t i o n o ft he Uni te d S ta te s pr ev en ts the Go ve r nm en t f r o m c o nduc ting u n re as on ab le s ea rc h es an d se izu re s. U ni t e d S t at e s v.N o. 08

- 1259 9 Arv izu , 53 4 U.S
. 26 6, 27 3 (20 02). The j uri sprudence o f th e Sup rem e C ou rt m akes clear th at th e prim ary b u lw ark aga i nst such conduct is the procur em ent o fa w ar ra nt fro m a n eu tr a l a n d d et ac h ed m ag ist ra te
. G roh v. R a m irez , 5 4 0 U. S
. 55 1 , 57 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ Th e po i nto fth e F o ur th Am e nd

m en t
. . . i s no t th at i t den i es l aw en f o r ce m en t the supp or t o fthe usual in f er ences w hi ch r eas onabl e m en dr aw f r o m ev i den ce . I ts pr o te ct i o n co ns i st s i n re qui r i ng that th os e i nfe re nces be dr aw n by a neutr aland detached m agi str ate i nstea d ofbein g j ud ged bythe offi cer en g ag ed i n the o fte n c o m pet i ti ve e nt er pr ise offer r et i ng out c rim e. ”) ( quoti ng Jo hn son v. U nited Sta tes , 33 3 U.S
. 10 , 13

- 14 ( 19 48 ) ( al te r at i o n i n or i g i na l ) )
. Tha t sa m e j ur i spr udence m ake s cl ear, h owever, thatther e a re cer tai n si tuati ons, de fi ne d in c a s e l a w, wh e n a wa r r a nt l e s s s e a r c h or se izu re is re as on ab le. S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . A l l m an , 33 6 F
. 3d 55 5, 5 56 (7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( di sc us singe xc ept i o ns t o the war r an t r equi r ementr ec o g ni ze d b y the S upr eme Co ur t). This case i nvol ves one oftho se excepti ons.

1. W e be gi n ouranal ysi s o fthe factualci rcum sta nces by ex am ining th e officers’ initialenc ou nt er w ith M r. W hi ta k er . The Gov ernm en t co nt en ds, a nd, a fte r a he ar i ng th e m ag ist ra te j u d ge an d th e d ist ric t c ou rtag re ed , th at th is i ni ti alenco un te r w as conse nsual i n nature and ther ef or e di d not co nsti tu te a s ei zure withi n the m eaning o f the F ourth A m endm ent. See U nite d State s v. Schee ts , 18 8 F. 3d 8 2 9 , 8 3 6

- 3 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 )
. Whe the r a p o l i c e - c i t i zen e nc o u n t e r i s c o n s e n s u a l i s a qu e s t i o n o ff a c t, a n d we10 N o. 08

- 1259

S ee Un i te d S tat es v . N obles , 69 F. 3d 172, 179- 80 ( 7th Cir

. 1995) 6 ( hol di ng thatwhethe r an en c ount er be t we en th e pol i c e and the defe nd ants w as conse nsual is a ques ti on of f act); U n ite d Sta t es v. M al donado , 38 F. 3d 9 36 , 939 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94 ) ( “The qu estion of w he the r a p articu lar en cou nte r is vo l u n tary is a f actual one, dep endan t on th e ci rcum st ances ofeac h cas e. ”) ( quo t ing Un i t ed Sta t es v. Berke, 93 0 F .2d 121 9, 122 1 (7th C ir . 19 9 1 ) (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itt ed )). Fr om r evi ew ing the r ec or d, i tappe ar s thatOf fi c er Over l and 7 rem ain ed i n her squad car during the encounter. The rec ord is uncle ar re gard ing w here O f fic er O verland parked h er s quad car. th erefore revi ew i t for clear error. 6 Upo n e xa mi na t i o n o fthe r e c o r d, w e m us tc o nc l ud e that the di str i ct cou rt d i d not cl ear l y e rri n re achi ng i ts d ecision. A t the tim e of th e e n cou nt er, M r. W hitake r’s carwas park ed i n a foo d sto re p ar ki ng l ot. Offi cer Bed f or d w as the fi rs t t o ar ri ve at the s cene. I n hi s rep or t, he stat e s tha th e p ul l e d u p b e hind the g r a y Ch e v r o l et I m p ala; he d oes not m en tion w he th er he h a d his em ergencyl i ghts on orwh etherhi s weapon w as draw n. R. 20 , Ex. 1
. Offi ce r B edf o r d s te pped o uto fthe v eh i cl e an d bega n to approach the dri ver ’ s si de of the car . A t t h is poi nt, M r. W hi tak erst epped o ut o fthe carand f aced Offi c e r Be df o r d. Of fi c e r J o s wi a ka nd Offi c e r Ov e r l a nd a r r i v e d s o on afte r war ds. Offi ce r Be df o r d a l r ea dy was par k ed be hi nd

7 M r. W hi t a k e r ’ s c a r o n the dr i v e r ’ s s i de ; Offi c e r J o s wi ak par k ed hi s squa d c ar b eh i nd M r . W hi ta k er ’ s ca r o n theN o. 08

- 1259 11

T he reco rd c on tain s no ev id en ce tha t the o fficers ha d their 8 em er g en cy lig h ts o n o r h a d th ei r g u n s d ra w n . pa s s e ng e r s i de

. T he t wo s qu a d c a r s we r e s i de

-b y - s i de behi nd the Ch evr ol et I m pal a. A va n wi thM ar sh ’ s ch i l dr enwas pa r k ed n ex t to the Ch evr ol et I m pal a. The r eco rd d oe s n ot i nd i cate wh ether any v eh i cl e was pa r k ed i n fr o nto fM r . W hi ta k er ’ s car, pr e v e nt i ngh i m f r o m dr i v i ngaway . As the o ffi c e r s a ppr o ac hed the c ar, the y di d no t as se r t th ei r a utho r i tyi n a m an ne r tha t f ai r l y c o ul d b e ch ar ac te r i ze d a s r es tr i ct i ng th e m o ve m en ts o fM r . W hi ta k era nd hi s com p an i o n. 8 The o ffi ce r s d id no t co nv ey, b y wor d o r a ct i o n, tha t th e occupants w er e t o ex i t the ve hi cl e. I nd eed, as Offi cer Bed f or d app ro ached, M r. W hi tak ergo t out o fhi s ca r of h i s o wna c c o r d t o me e th i m. A l th o ugh ne i the r the S up r e me Co ur tn o r thi s c o ur thas d e c i d e d a c a s e i d e n t i c a l i n a l l r e s p e c t s t o o u r o wn, s o me ofo ur ca ses ar e instr ucti ve. W e hav e hel d that, i fa dri ver sto ps a c aro n h is ow n and no o therco er ci ve acti vi ty oc c u rs , a p olic e en c ou n te r i s c o n se n su al. U ni t e d S t at e s v. H e ndr i cks , 3 19 F.3d 99 3, 99 9-1 00 0 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). In H e ndr i cks , a p olic e c ar w ith ou t it s e m er ge n c y ligh ts follow ed a c ar int o a ga s s ta tio n . Th e o ffice r p ar ke d h is car about fi ftee n f eet f ro m the car, and the occup an t of th e ca r g o to u ta n d b e g a n t o a p p r o a c h th e o ffi c e r . T he o ffi ce r r adi o ed f o r b ackup, the n g o t o uto fthe c ara nd spoke with the dri ver . W e hel d that the i ni ti alenco u n ter w as co n se n su al a n d th at n o s t o p h ad oc c u rre d u n til a12 N o. 08

- 1259

W e also h eld tha t the d efend an t ha d w a i v e d h is Fo u rth 9 A m en d m en t a rg u m en t. U n it ed S tates v . C lem en ts , 522 F. 3d 790, 794 ( 7th Cir . 2008). The d is cuss ion ofw hether the s top w as c ons en s ual was anal t er nat i ve hol di ng. s e c o nd o ffi c e r a r r i v e d wi th hi s e mer g e nc y l i g ht s a c t i v a t e d. Id. at 999. S i m i l ar l y, i n U nit ed States v. C le m ents , 52 2 F
. 3d 790, 79 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , the pol i ce r ec eiv ed an anonym ous t i p that a c ar h ad be en p ar ke d an d ru n n in g f o r fou r h ou rs in fro n t o f th e c alle r’s h ou se . Tw o p olic e o ffice rs inv es tigat ed. They s topped thei r squad car fi ftee n to twenty feet be hi nd the pa r k ed ca r, s hi ne d a s po tl i g ht on the c ara nd acti vate d thei r em er gencyl i ghts . W hen theyapproa ched the car, the occupant ofthe carrai sed a kni f e a t the o ffi cer s. The o ffi ce r s o r der ed hi m to dr o p th e wea po n an d st ep o ut ofthe car, and w hen he di d, a m aga zi ne c ontaini ng te n c a r t r i d g e s o fl o ng r i f l e a mmu n i t i o n fe l l o u to fth e c a r . We he l d tha t the di st r i ctco ur t di d notpl ainl y er r i n a dm i tt i ng the e vi dence. Id. at 794. W e fur ther m or e hel d that the car 9 w as not sei zed bec ause the dr i verhad sto pp ed the car vo lu n ta rily, n ot b ec au se o f t h e fla sh in g ligh ts
. Id. at 794- 95. W e emphas i ze d tha t, o th ertha n fl as hi ngl i g ht s for i den

t i fi c a t i o n a nd s a f e t y p ur po s e s , the o ffi c e r s d i d n o tdo anythi ng to m ake the dri verfeelthathi s fre ed om was r es tr aine d, s ucha s dr awi ngthe i r wea po ns , s ur r o undi ng th e ca r wi ths qua d c ar s, t o uch i ngth e d r i ve r o r us i ng for c efu l lan gu ag e p rior to th e k n ife b ein g d isp lay ed

. Id. By co nt r as t, i n U nite d State s v. P avels ki, 789 F
. 2d 485, 48 8- 89 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 6 ) , we de t e r mi ne d tha t s ur r o un di nga car on three si des co nsti tutes a sto p. I n that case , a depu tyN o. 08

- 1259 13

w as follow in g a c ar w h en itt u rn ed in to a p ar kin g lot

. Id. at 48 6- 87
. The de put y s to pped hi s pat r o l c arb eh i nd the p a r k e d c a r, a n d a s e c o n d o ffi ce r l a t e r p a r k e d b e s i d e i t
. At thi s poi nt, the offi cer s had no su sp i ci on that the dri ver or the oth e r occu p an ts ha d viol ated any law s. A third o fficer arri ve d, a nd pa r k ed twe nty t o thi r tyfee t i n fr o nt of the car. The dri verexi ted the car, and the depu ty bega n questi o ni nghi m . The de put y the n t appe d the wi ndo w o fthe l eft r ea r passenge r door, and, afterthe occupant l owered th e w in d o w , b eg an qu es tio n in g h im
. Id. N o t ha ving r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n b utr athe r a “ g utfee l i ng, ” th e o ffi ce r s ea r ch ed th e ca r a nd f o und we apo ns a nd v ar i o us i tem s ass oci ate d w i th a re cent bank ro bber y. W e no ted that, pri orto the thir d squad carar ri vi ng, the carhad not been subj ec t to a Terryst op . Id. at 488. W he n th e third p atrol car parke d in front of th e d efend an t’s car, how ever, a s to p h ad oc c u rre d

. Id. at 48 8-8 9. See a lso U nited Sta tes v. G reen , 11 1 F
. 3d 515, 52 0 ( 7th C ir. 1997) ( hol ding that w here o ffi cer s bl ock ed a c ar ’ s e xi t, the sto p was not c on se n su al); U nited Sta tes v. P a ck er, 15 F. 3d 654, 65 7 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ) (h old in g t h at a st op oc c u rre d w h er e t h e o ffice r s’ c ar s wer e par k ed in front o fa nd b eh i nd the de f en dant’s carwith the “t ake dow n” light shi ni ng thr ough d efend an t’s car’s w ind ow s). The questi on o fwh ethe r thi s e ncounterwas conse nsual in th is c as e is a c los e on e. H ow ev er , ass es sin g t h e re c or d in i ts t o ta l i ty, we m us t co nc l ude tha t, o n thi s f ac t-b o und q u es tio n, th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n w as n ot cle ar ly er ro neous.14 N o. 08

- 1259 2. Even i fthe offi cer s’ i ni ti alenco unter w i th M r. W hi tak er ca nno t be c ha r ac te r i ze d a s co ns en su al, we be l i ev e th atthe o ffi ce r s ha d the a utho r i tyt o s to p M r . W hi ta k erl o ng enough t o asce rt ai n w hetheri l l ega l act i vi ty w as af oo t. Any d i s c u s s i o n o f th i s a r e a mu s t b e g i n wi th t he S upr eme Co ur t’ s se m i na lde ci si o n i n Ter ry v . O hio , 39 2 U. S
. 1 ( 19 68 )
. I n Terry, the S up r e me Co ur th e l d:
w here a pol i ce offi cero bser ves unu sualco nd uct w h ich lea d s h im rea so n ab ly to co n c lu d e in ligh t o f h is ex per i en ce tha t cr i m i na l a ct i vi tymay be a f o o t an d that th e p er sons w i th wh om he i s deal i ng m ay be a r med a nd p r e s e nt l y da ng e r o us , wh e r e i n the c o ur se of i nv e s t i g a t i ng thi s b e ha v i o r he i de nt i fi e s hi mse l fas a po l i ce m ana nd m ake s r ea so nabl e i nqui r i es , a nd w here nothi ng i n the i ni ti alst age s o fthe encoun ter ser ves to dispel hi s r eas onabl e fearf orhi s o w n or othe rs ’ sa f ety, he i s e nti tl ed f orthe prot ecti on o f h im se lf an d ot h er s i n t h e a re a t o c on d u c t a ca re fu lly l i m i te d se ar ch o f th e o ut er cl o th i ng o f such pe r so ns i n an at tem pt to d isco verweapons w hi ch m i ght b e u s e d t o a s s a u l th i m. Id. at30
. The Courthas m ade cl earthatthi s e xcepti on t o th e war r an t r equirem en t do es no t g i ve a n i nv es ti g at i ng o ff ic e r ca r t eb l anc heto detain an i nd i vi du al, ev en te m pora ri l y, si m ply b ecause the offi cerbel i eve s that s uch ac ti o n wi l l a i d hi s i nvestigati o n. M o stno tabl y, i n J.L., 529 U
. S
. a t 2 7 1

- 7 2 , the Co ur t he l d tha t the s t o p ofan in d ivid u al s ol e l y on the ano nym ous t i p ofan ind i vi du alN o. 08

- 1259 15

I n F l or i da v. J
. L. , 529 U.S
. 266 ( 2000) , the polic e had rece ived 10 an ano nym ous c al l r epo rt i ng th ata bl ac k m an wear i ng a pl ai d s hi rtan d s t andi ng a ta par t i c ul ar bus s t op was c ar ry i ng a gun. W i th n o o the r i nf or m at i on, offic er s wentt o the l oc at i on, f r i s k e d th e i n d i v i d u a l a n d f o u n d a fi r e a r m. The r ec or d s hows thatthe o ff icers l at er di s c ove re d t hatthe 11 c al l er ha d gi venthe 91 1 op era tor a f al s e nam e and t el eph one n u m b e r . H o w e v e r , w e m e a su r e th e st r e n g t h o f a n o ffi c e r ’s in fo rm a tio n at th e t im e h e a ct ed

. G ow er v. V ercl er, 377 F. 3d 661, 668 ( 7th Cir . 2004)
. M oreover, Travis corre ct ly i dentifie d h im se lf a s M a rs h ’s co u sin
. usual l y f al l s be yond the bound s o fr eas onabl eness . 10 Such a ti p, not ed the cour t, si m plyte nd s t o i de n tify a parti cul arper son, bu t, u nl ess i t co ntai ns so m e pr edi cti on o ffut ur e be ha vi o r tha t ca n b e i den ti fi ed byi nde pen den t i nvest i gat i on, ther e i s no thi ng to co rr obo ra te i ts as se rt ion of illega lity

. Id. Other w i se, “a ny per son se ek i ngt o ha r as s an othe r [ co ul d] s eti n mot i o n a n i nt r usi v e , e mba r r a s s i ngp o l i c e s e a r c h o fthe t a r g e t e d p e r s on si m plyby pl aci ng an anonym ous c al l, ” id. at 27 2, accusi ng the ta rg ete d i nd i vi du alo fan i l l ega l i ty. The si tuati on be f or e us today i s v er y di ff er ent fro m th e o n e p r e s e n t e d i n J.L. H er e, the 911 cente r re cei ved tw o cal l s i n cl ose succe ssi on that a l er ted the pol i ce t o an ongo i ng al te r ca ti o n i n a f o o d s to r e par k i ng lot. The fi rs t ca l l was anonym ous; the sec on d cal l was f ro m an ind ivi d ua l w ho gav e a n a m e and teleph one nu m ber, 11 c laim ed to be rela te d to on e o f th e p eo p le in vo lve d in the a l ter cati on a nd sa i d that h is ow n i nter venti on at te m p t h a d en d ed w ith M r. W h ita ke r th re at en in g h im w ith a gu n . A t t h e s c en e, th e o ffice rs fou n d th e t w o v eh i-16 N o. 08

- 1259

S ee, e.g ., U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B r o wn , 49 6 F
. 3d 1070, 1077 ( 10th Cir

. 12 20 07 ) ( “[ W ] e c onc l ude i t was re as ona bl e f or t he police to further cre dit the i nf orm ati on prov ided in an em ergency 911 c al l be c aus e the c al l er was appa rentl y s ee ki ng pr ot ec t i on and a id for a fr ie n d .”); U n ited S tates v. El st on , 47 9 F .3d 314 , 31 9 (4th (co n tin u ed ...) cl es de sc r ibe d i n the c al ls an d two i ndi vi dual s i n o ne o f th o se ve hi cl es . The wea po n des cr ibe d by o ne ofthe cal l er s was noti m m edi ate l y v i sibl e. I n U ni t e d S t at e s v. D r ake, 4 5 6 F. 3d 771 (7th C ir. 2006), w hile acknow ledgin g the strictures of J
. L. , w e no ted that th e r epo r tingo fa n ongoin gem er gencypre sents speci al p ro b lem s a n d ob liga tio n s o n th e p olic e. Id

. at 77 4-7 5. A ccor dingl y, we hel d that, wh en the pol i ce r espond to an em er gencyas a re sul t o fa 911 cal l, the exi genc i es of the s i tuati on do no t r equi re furtherpre - re sponse ver i fi cati o n o fthe c al l er ’ s i den ti tyb efo r e ac ti o n i s ta k en . I nd eed, we re centl y hav e encounter ed thi s s i tuati on in an ot h er ca s e . In U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 53 1 F
. 3d 555 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ), w e h eld th at t h e o f f ice r h ad rea so n ab le suspi ci on t o sto p t h e defendant bas ed on a ti p w hi ch re p or te d an on go in g e m er ge n c y t o 9 11
. Id. at 55 8-59. W e hel d that J
. L. d oe s not gov ern beca use the cal l er “gave the 9 11 o per at o r e no ug h i nf o r m at i o n t o i den ti fy hi m a nd hi s l o cation , a nd b ec au se he r epo r te d a n o ngoing em er gency . ” Id. W e fu rt h er n ot ed th at e ve ry circ u it t o c o nfr o ntthe i ssue ha d d i s t i ngui s he d J
. L. whenthe ti p w as “no t o ne o fge nera l cr i m i nal i ty, but ofan on go in g e m er ge n c y, or v er y re c en t c rim in al a c tiv ity .” Id. 12N o. 08

- 1259 17

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 Cir. 2007) ( holding that a “911 report, even ifanonym ous, bore s t ro ng i ndi c i a o fr el i abi l i t y a nd al er t ed th e p oli c e offi c er s t o a se ri ous and im m inentdang er” and th a t “ [ g]i ven such ci rcum st ances , the dist ri ctcourt did n o t er r in concl ud ing that the of fic ers poss es se d inf orm ati on suffic ie nt to ju stify a Terry sto p ” o f th e d efe n d a n t); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Drake, 456 F. 3d 771, 775 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) ( holding that w e “pres um e the re li abili ty ofan ey ewi t ne s s 9 11 c al l r epo rt i ng a n e m er ge nc y s i t uat i on f or p u rp oses o f estab lishing reaso na b le susp icion , p articu larly w hen the cal le r id en tifi es h er se lf” ); U n ited Sta t es v. Terry- C re spo , 356 F. 3d 1170, 1176 ( 9th Cir

. 2004) ( “Po lice delay whil e at t em pt i ng t o v eri fy a n i dent i t y or s ee k c or ro bor at i on ofa re por t ed e m er ge nc y m ay pro ve c os t l y t o publ i c s afety a nd un de r m i ne the 9 1 1 s ys t e m ’ s us e ful ne s s . . . . Th e Fo ur t h Am e nd

m en t d oe s no t requ ire the p olice to con d u ct furth er p re-resp on se v eri fica tion of a 911 caller’s id en tity w he re th e caller re p or ts an em ergenc y . Accordingly, an em ergency 911 c all i s enti tl ed t o gr ea t er r el i abi l i t y thananan onym ous t i p c onc er ning general cr im inal ity. ”); U n it ed Sta t es v. Hol l ow ay, 290 F. 3d 1331, 1337- 38 ( 11th Cir

. 2002) ( noti n g t h a t i n an em ergency, “offic ers ar e c om pel l ed t o s ea rc h by a de s ir e t o l oc at e vi c t i m s an d t he ne ed t o e ns ur e the i r own s afety a nd thatofthe publ i c , ” a nd hold i ng that“i n a n e m er ge nc y, the pr obabl e c aus e el em en t m ay b e satisfi ed w he re o fficers rea son ab ly b eliev e a p erso n is in d a n g er ” ). One ca s e i n the Se c ond Ci rc ui te xpr es s es r es er vat i ons c onc er ni ng whe the r the c ol l e c t i ve k no wl e dg e do c t r i ne s ho ul d b e ex t en ded t o th e 91 1 em pl oye e who t ake s the c al l an d pas s es on the e m ergency nature ofthe s ituation t o polic e offic ers o p er a tin g in th e fie ld

. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. C ol on , 250 F. 3d 130 ( 2d (co n tin u ed ...)18 N o. 08

- 1259

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 Ci r. 20 01 )
. The pan el ’ s m i s gi vi ngs i n thatcas e were bas ed o n th e t ra in in g g iv en to em p lo y ee s w h o ar e n o t p o lic e o ffice rs . Id

. at 135- 37. O ur cas e l aw , and indeed th e ca se l aw ofthe other c i rc ui t s , has no tdwel l ed o n the s am e re s er vat i ons . I n D ra ke, we he l d that 91 1 r epo rt s by i dent i fi ed c al l er s c an pro vi de the polic e with re asonable sus pici on and that911 em ployees are p a rt o f th e p o lic e c o lle c t i v e. D ra ke, 45 6 F .3d at 77 5. Ind eed , it appe ar s thatthe Se cond Cir c ui tha s m odi fi ed i t s pos i t i on and w ould fol low the path that we hav e c hosen her e i n a cas e s uch as thi s w here the cal le rs w er e describing events ofan e me r g e n c y na t u r e o c c u r r i n g a s th e i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t e d th e m. S ee A n thon y v. C i ty of

New Y ork, 339 F. 3d 129, 136 ( 2d C ir
. 2003) (“In th e instan t case, the call c a m e fro m the sam e loca tion to w hich the polic e re spond ed, and m ore i m portantl y, the cal le r described an i m m ediate and d eadly thre at ofharm to w hich she hers el fw as being exposed at thatl ocati on. The concern we e xpr es s ed i n K er m an r eg ar di ng the r el i abi l i t y ofan onym ous an d un cor ro b or ated calls

— thati s, call s reporti ng an em ergency ata di ff er en tl oc at i on and i nvol vi ng s om eo ne othe r t hanthe cal le r

— is not i m plic a te d h ere, w here the cal le r ex press ed an im m ed iate r i sk o f ha rm to he rself, an d w he re th e ad d ress fro m w h ic h th e c a ll w a s p la ce d w a s v er ifie d .”). ( c i t a t i o ns o mi t t e d)

. We fur the r s t a t e d: A r ule r equi ri ng a l ower l eve l o fco rr obo ra tio n bef or e co nd ucti ng a sto p on the bas i s o fan e m er gency r epo r t i s no t si m pl y a n e m er g en cyexc ept i o n t o the rule of J
. L. I t is bet ter unde r st o o d a s r o o te d i n the spe ci alr el i ab i l i tyi nhe r en t i n r epo r ts o fongoing emer g en ci es . Ba se d o n tha t spe ci alr el i ab i l i ty, the S upr eme Cou r t ha s he l d th at r epo r ts o f ong oi ngN o. 08

- 1259 19

em er genc ies m ade i n 911 cal l s a re subj ect to l ess tes ti ng in c ourtthan othe r out- of

- cour t s tat em ents. Si m i l ar l y, wh en an offi cerr el i es on a n em er gency re porti n m aki ng a sto p, a l ower l eve l o fco rr obo ra ti on i s r e qu i r e d. Id. at 559-60 (intern al ci tations om itted ). The Fi rs t Ci rcui t a l so has m enti one d the i m port ance ofthe pol i ce b ei ng ab l e t o tak e qui ck acti on d uri ng an on go in g e m er ge n c y. InU ni t e d S t at e s v. Rui di az , 5 2 9 F
. 3d 25, 27( 1stCi r. 20 08) , a 911 calle r re p or ted a shoo ti ng at o r ne ara pa r ti cul ara ddr es s. He n o ted th atthe i nd i vi du als i nvol ved w er e wearing r ed shi rt s a nd that th e sh o o te r o r s ho o te r s wer e i n a g r ee n Mer ce des

- Ben z parke d at the address he pr ovi ded

. The cal l erco nfirm ed the num berfro m wh i ch he was cal l in g, but di d not pr o vi de hi s na m e a nd w arne d tha t he w o ul d notbe o n the str eetwh en the police a rri ved. The o ffi cer s who ar ri ved f ound the gr een c aras descr ibed and n oti ced thati t was parke d i n vi ol ati on o ftwo m unici palo rdi nances. They f ound the de f e nd a nts l umpe d o v e r i n the p a s s e ng e r s e a t. W he n they t o uc he d the ma n’ s s ho ul de r, h e s c r e a med a pr o f a ni t y . T he o ffi c e r s s e a rche d the ma n a nd f o un d a h andgun. One ofthe offi cer s ca l l ed the phone num ber pr o vi ded to 9 11 a nd s p oke wi ths o m eo ne , b utthe p er so n w ou ld n ot id en tify h im se lf; n or is it c lea r th at it w as th e s am e per son. The Fi rs t Ci rcui t hel d that, bas ed on a to ta lity of th e c i r c u m st an c es , th er e w as rea so n ab le su sp icio n for t h e s ea rc h

. Id. a t 33
. I t no te d tha t th e cal l erco nfi rm ed hi s phone num b er and thatthe pol i ce knew the cal l erco uld b e tracke d dow n i fhe pr ovi ded20 N o. 08

- 1259 fals e in for m at ion
. Id. at 31. I n hold i ng tha t the f acts ta ken togethe r w er e m or e than suffi ci ent forthe pol i ce t o gi ve som e cr edence to th e 9 11 cal l, the cour t e m phasi zed that th e c all re fer en c ed an on go in g e m er ge n c y. Id. at 31 n. 2. “[R ]ep or ts ab ou t on go in g em er ge n c ies , b y virt u e of t h eir ver y nature, nece ssi tat e qui ck acti on. ” Id. Acco r di ng l y, the po l i ce ha d the r i g htto d eta i n the o cc upa nt s o fthe c arl o nge no ug h t o a sc er ta i n whe th erthe si tuati on desc rib ed by the cal l er s was st i l l an on go in g t h re at to eit h er of th e in d i v i d u a l s in vo lve d in the a l ter cati on o r to the publ i c.
C. T h e in for m at i on ob ta in ed by th e p olic e a fte r th eir ar ri valatthe scene, w hen com bi ned w i th the i nfo rm atio n alre ad y k n ow n t o th em p rior to th eir arr iva l, cer tai nl y g ave the o ffi cer s th e r equi si te author i ty to se ar c h th e c ab in of M r. W h i t a k er ’s c ar to as c er ta in w hetheri t co ntai ned a weapon. The o ffi cer s’ co nver sat i on w i th M r. W hi tak erand hi s co m panio n, toge therwith th eir i nde pen den t o bs er va ti o ns , made i t cl ea r tha t th e two o cc upa nt s o fthe c arwer e en g ag ed in a n a l te r ca ti o n. M ar sh adm i tte d tha t she had bee n ar gui ng with M r. W hi tak er ; the offi cero bser ved thathershi rtwas sta i ned w i th h er tear s a nd she w as cry i ng. A l though M ar shde ni ed th atM r. W hi ta k erha d a wea po n, s he w oul d not v ol untaril y m ove away fro m the cardoor w hen Offi cerJ oswia k a nnounced that he w as go i ng to se ar c h th e ca r. A ll of th es e fa c to rs , w h en as se ss ed in th ei r tot al i ty, cer tai nl y c onst i tuted a suffi ci ent b asi s t oN o. 08

- 1259 21

In O fficer Josw iak ’ s testim on y , he d escrib es w ha t d rew his 13 a t t e n t i o n a s h e wa s e n t e r i n g t h e p a r k i n g l o t
. He s t a t e s : “ As I reca ll, the on e v eh icle p ark ed ne xt to the silve r v eh i c l e w ith a v a n h a d th e d o o r o p e n w i t h so m e k i d s in a n d I m e a n t h e r e ’s the v an w ith th e k i d s, t h e s ilve r car.” R
. 23 at 39
. It is unc l ea r when Of fi c er Bedf or d not i c ed the c hi l dre n.

10- 27- 08 j u st ify th e office rs ’ in sp ec tio n of th e c ab in for a w ea p on . See U nited Sta tes v. A rno ld, 38 8 F
. 3d 23 7, 2 39 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. To l eave the scene at t h at poi nt witho ut havi ng per f or m ed s u c h a n i ns p e c t i o n c o u l d h a v e j e o p a r d i z e d th e i r o wn safety, as w el l as that of thos e i n the surr ounding area, in c lu d in g M ar sh ’s c h ild re n in t h e v an p ar ke d im m ed iat ely next to M r. W hi tak er ’ s car. The Fo urth Am endm ent doe s 13 not re quir e s uch an unrea l i sti c r esponse to the si tuati on bef or e us.
Conclusi on The offi cer s had the r equi si te re as on abl e s uspici on t o ju s t ify their search of th e pa ssen ger com p artm en t of M r. W hi tak er ’ s ca r. There f or e, the fi re ar m f ound there was admi ss ibl e, a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t co r r ec tl y de ni ed th e m o ti o n t o s uppr es s. Acco r di ng l y, th e j udg m en t o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED