## 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

- 1600 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D EN NIS J AM ES W OO DEN , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the No rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:07- CR-00082- RL M

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Chief Ju dge . A RG UE D O CT OB ER 15, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 29, 2008

Befo re E AST E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd C OFFEYa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Ea r l y o ne Sa tu r daymor ni ng th e 9 11 sy st em in So u th B en d , In d ian a, re c eiv ed th is cal l fro m a pay phone: I would l i ke to re porta bl ack m al e with a s i l ver ha nd g un . He wa s a r g ui ngwi t h hi s , a h, g i r l f r i e nd , orwh ate ver . . . . T h ey w er e wal ki ng to w ar d [the] 7- El ev eno n M i ami [ S tr ee t]
. H e’ s t al l

. He’ s wea r i ng2 N o. 08

- 1600

a bl ac k j ac k et an d bl ue j ea n pan ts
. H e ha s th e gun on a hol ste r. A nd Ise en hi m pulli t o ut. Pol i ce qui ckl y s pott ed t h e couple but did notse e a n o ng o i nga r g um en t; th eywer e ea tings na ckf o o d. But O ffice r G ar y R ey n old s t h ou gh t t h at an arm ed d om es tic qu arrel cou ld resu m e a t any tim e and stop p ed the p air. A pat- dow n f ound the gun, j ust a s the cal l erhad descr ibed it. Th e safety w a s o ff ; the serialnu m ber ha d been obli terate d. W oo den enter ed a conditi onalgui l ty ple a t o posse ssi nga fi r e a r m de s pi t e a fe l o nyc o nv i c ti o n, 1 8 U. S
. C. §922 ( g) ( 1) , and a seco nd count base d on the m i ssi ng se ri al num ber, 18 U
. S. C . § 922( k)

. The se ntence, 30 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, i s m odest f orthes e o f f enses . W he th er the g un s ho ul d ha ve b ee n s uppr es se d a s th e f rui t o fan unl aw ful sea rch i s the qu esti on r ese rv ed f or appeal by the condi ti onalpl ea. W oo den concedes that th e ca l l woul d ha ve pr o vi ded ade qua te su ppo r t for a Terryst op ( see Terry v. O hio , 3 92 U
. S
. 1 ( 19 68 ) ) i fthe cal l erhad gi ven hi s nam e. But he co ntends that, because th e ca l l was anony m o us a nd the po l i ce di d no t ve r i fy a ny detai l s o therthan i nnocuous o nes ( such as hi s pos i ti on and cl othi ng) , the hol ding ofFl or i da v
. J
. L. , 529 U
. S. 26 6 ( 20 00 ) , r equi r es a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe exc lusi o na r y r ul e. The d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d ot h er w ise , con c lu d in g t h at 91 1 c alls re port i ng an ongo i ng cr i m e m ust be tr eat ed di f f er entl y. So w e h eld inU ni t e d S t at e s v. D r ake, 45 6 F
. 3d 771, 77 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. S ee al so U ni t e d S ta t e s v. H i cks , 53 1 F
. 3d 555, 55 8–59 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( re port i ng tha t e very c ou rt o f appeal s that has co nsi dered the su bj ect has co ncl ud ed thatJ.L
. do es no t co ve r a no ny m o us r epo r ts o fo ng o i ng c rim e that r equi re i m m edi ate act i on t o ensure publi cN o. 08

- 1600 3 safety )
. W oo den w ants us to ab ro gat e D r akea nd H i cks , b utwe thi nkthe m s o un d. Terryand i ts succes sor s ho l d that a st op supporte d by ar ti cul abl e s uspici on i s “ re aso nab l e” und erthe f ourth am en d m en t. Se e, e.g ., Il l i noi s v. War dl ow , 52 8 U.S
. 11 9, 12 3 ( 20 00) ; U nited Sta tes v. C ha idez , 919 F.2d 119 3 (7th C ir. 1990 )
. A rt i cul abl e s uspici on ca n be est abl i shed by an an o ny m o us t i p i fthe po l i ce c o r r o bo r at e en o ug h o fthe ti pster ’ s i nfo rm ati on to i m ply thatthe ti psterm ust po ss es s i ns i de k no wled ge ab o utthe de ta i l s th atthe pol i ce c oul d not o ther w i se o b serve. S ee Alabam a v. White, 4 9 6 U .S. 32 5 (1 99 0), an d th e d isc u ss ion inJ
. L. , 52 9 U.S
. at 270– 71. Kn owing a t i pster ’ s nam e i ncre ase s t h e chance that he c an be hel d accountab l e (both sta te and fe deral g o v e r n me n t s ma k e i ta c r i me t o te l lma t e r i a l l i e s t o l a wenf or cem ent o f ficials ) , and knowle dge thata ti psterhas i nsi de i nfo rm ati on l i kewis e inc re ase s the chance that the r epor t o fcr i m e i s a ccurat e. B u t p eo p le w h o re p or t c rim es d o n ot inv ar iab ly c laim “in sid e in for m at ion ” (a s t h e t ip st er s in J
. L. a nd W hitedid ). The cal l eri n thi s ca se tol d u s h ow h e knew thatW oo den h ad a gu n : he sa w W oo d en d ra w it from its h ols te r in pu bl i c. Cor ro bor ation of othe r i nfo rm ati on ( such as whethe r a t al l man ne arthe 7

- El ev ens to r e was wea r i ng a b lac k jac ke t a n d blu e jean s) w ou ld n ot m ak e t h is c l a im m or e pl ausible

—but the n, the ass er ti ons ofey ew i tness es to crim e gen erall y d o not n eed corroboration, or a history of ot h er ac c u ra te rep or ts , to b e be liev ed . See , e.g., Gr am e nos v . Je we l Co mp a n i e s , Inc . , 797 F.2d 432 ( 7th Cir. 1986); cf. Illin o i s v. G a tes , 46 2 U.S
. 21 3 ( 1983 ) ( a t i pster ’ s hi sto ryo f4 N o. 08

- 1600 provi ding re l i abl e i nfo rm ati on is notes senti alto p robab le cause ). Doubtl ess gr eat erco nfi dence can b e a chi eve d w hen p oli ce kn ow a call er’s i d e nt ity, f or then , as the C ou rt ob se rv ed inJ.L
. , the thre at ofpenal ti es for lie s m ake s inform ation m ore reliable. Yet as a prac tical m atter a nam e g i ven bya cal l erdoes notm ake the ti p l ess ano nym o us . S uppo se th at th e 91 1 ca l l i n th i s ca se ha d begun : “M y nam e i s J ohn J enki ns, and Iwould l i ke to re port
. . . ”. Tha t a ca l l erg i ves a na m e d o es no t m ea n tha t he is J o hn J enki ns ( ei therthe Pres i dent ofN ot re Dam e o r any o ther J ohn J enki ns)
. Cal l erI D d oes notso l ve th i s pro bl em f or pu bl i c phones or eve n hom e phones, w hi ch c an be us ed by m ultiple p eop le ( inc lu d ing gue sts at a p arty); som e subscr iber s bl ock the ser vi ce. Cell phones, w hi ch alm os t a l w a y s u se ca ller ID , ca n be st ole n . A n d it w ou ld und er m i ne the go alo fthe 911 sys tem to r equi re a cal l er to provehi s i denti ty, p er h ap s by co m i ng to the sta ti on wi t h a dr i v e r ’ s l i c e ns e o r p a s s po r t, b e f o r e the p o l i c e r eact t o the i nf o r mat i o n. Whe n c r i me i s i n pr ogr es s , p r o mpt acti on i s essenti al

. The f ourth am endm ent pr ohibi ts u n reaso nabl e s ear ches and sei zure s, and i t has l ong been u n d er st oo d th at, w h e n th e p olic e b elie ve th at a c rim e is i n prog re ss ( ori m m i nent) , act i on o n a l ess erdegr ee of probabi l i ty, o r w i th few erpro ceduralcheck s i n adv an ce, c an be rea so n ab le. Se e, e.g ., B righ a m C ity v. Stu a rt, 54 7 U
. S. 398 (2006). J
. L. de a l twith a s i t ua t i o n i n whi c h t he r e wa s n o a pparent need f orhast e, i n w hi ch the cal l erdi d not desc ribe h ow h e k n e w th at J.L . w as arm ed , an d in w h ich th e t ip w as no t rec ord ed ( so the police m ay ha ve m isun d er-N o. 08

- 1600 5 sto od the detai l s)
. The pol i ce c oul d take thei r ti m e t o ga th er m or e i nfo rm ati on, and the Court hel d that a n i m m edi at e st o p was unr ea so nabl e. Ourc ase , b y c o ntr ast, ar i ses fro m a re cor ded 9 11 cal l thatr eve al ed how th e c a l l e r k ne w a b o ut t he c r i me a nd t ha t i mpl i e d a nee d f ordi spatch. W oo d en o bser ves that the c ouple was chatti ng a m i cabl y b y the t i m e th e po l i ce a r r i ve d, b utthe offi cerexpl ai ned that dom est i c vi ol ence c om es and goe s; a ma n who p ul l s a g uno n hi s wi f e or g i r l f r i e nd ma y do i t a gai n at any m om en t. (T h er e i s a l so a r i sk that an ar m ed m an m ay thre ate n the w om an with hi m that, u n les s s h e “ ac ts n at u r a l ” w h en th e p olic e a rriv e, sh e w ill b e b ea te n or s h ot lat er .) A 91 1 s yst em desi gned to pro vi de an em er gency response to tel ephon ic t i ps coul d not o perat e i fthe pol i ce h ad to ve rify th e id en tit y of a ll ca llers an d te st th eir cl ai m t o ha ve se en cr i m es i n pr o g r es s. A pr o ce ss o ft es ting w oul d fru st rate the e xped i ti on that o ften i s e sse nti alto prot ect l i ves and s afety
. A sys tem that f ol l ows an “a ct f ast, verify l ate r” approa ch cr eat es ri sks o funj usti fi ed acti on and m ak es i t pos sibl e f orso m eone hol ding a g rudge t o ca us e tr o ubl e. Al l of th is g o es i nt o the c al cul us o fr ea so nabl eness , tog ether w i th the fac t t h atTerrystop s are brief, and people can quick l y g o on thei r w ay i f t he cal l pro ves t o b e u nf o un de d. S o we r e i t e r a t e the h o l di ngo fD rake an d H i cks th a t a n ee d for d isp at c h ca n m ak e re as on ab le a s top that would notbe re aso nabl e i fthe pol i ce had ti m e t o i nvest i gat e a t l ei sure . The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t er r in con cl udi ngtha t th e ci rcum sta nces re port ed to the pol i ce i m pli ed a nee d fo r haste , and that a r epor t by a perso n cl ai m i ng to have6 N o. 08

- 1600

se en a gu n d ra w n in p u b lic p ro vid ed art icu lab le su sp ici on for a Terryst op and f ri sk. A fterW oo den’s ar re st, the perso n w ho m ad e the 91 1 cal l was i denti fi ed. W oo den m ai ntai ns t hat the cal l er hel d a gr ud ge aga i n st h im and l i ed w hen he s ai d that W oo den had d ra w n hi s g un on the str eet

— th o ug h the cal l erdi d k no w tha t W o o denwas pa ck i nghe at
. Butthe pol i ce a re enti tl ed to acto n w hat i s k n ow n at the t i m e; i nf o r m at i o n turn ed up l at erne i th erv i ndi ca te s no r c o ndemns a se ar ch

. A co ns ti tu ti o na l o bl i g at i o n t o de f era cti o n pe ndi ng an i nvest i gat i on i nto the possibi l i ty that a 911 caller m ay be o ut to cause m i schi efwould c ri pp l e the em er gency re sponse sys tem ; f ar bet terto actqui ckl y a nd l ate r pros ecute a ny m i schi ef

- m ake rs wh o can be caught

. J ud ges m ust no t un d er es ti m ate the val ue o fdeter re nce f or91 1 ca l l e r s , a s we l l a s f o r th o s e wh o ma y b e c o mmi t t i ng othe r cri m es, f oras thi s case show s ca l l er s’ i denti ty m ay be pi nned d own with e nough ti m e, w h ether o r not they i denti fy them sel ve s. I fthi s 9 11 cal l was an eff or t by som eone wh o knew an i ncri m i nati ng f act ( that W oo den was c ar r y i nga g un) t o mis l ead the po l i ce b y a ss er ting s o me t h i n ge l s e th a twa s n o t t r u e ( t h a t Wo o d e n h a d d r a wn h is gu n to int im i d a t e a co m p an ion ), th e b es t re m ed y is to pr o se cut e th e ca l l err athe r tha n al l o w a gun- to ting f elo n to e scape pu ni shm ent. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ou rtth er efo re is AFFI RMED .
12- 29- 08