Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 344

529US1

Unit: $U41

[09-26-01 09:10:16] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 266 (2000)

269

Opinion of the Court

J. L., who was at the time of the frisk “10 days shy of his
16th birth[day],” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, was charged under state
law with carrying a concealed ﬁrearm without a license and
possessing a ﬁrearm while under the age of 18. He moved
to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search, and
the trial court granted his motion. The intermediate ap-
pellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida
quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the
Fourth Amendment. 727 So. 2d 204 (1998).

Anonymous tips, the Florida Supreme Court stated, are
generally less reliable than tips from known informants and
can form the basis for reasonable suspicion only if accompa-
nied by speciﬁc indicia of reliability, for example, the correct
forecast of a subject’s “ ‘not easily predicted’ ” movements.
Id., at 207 (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U. S. 325, 332
(1990)). The tip leading to the frisk of J. L., the court ob-
served, provided no such predictions, nor did it contain any
other qualifying indicia of reliability.
727 So. 2d, at 207–208.
Two justices dissented. The safety of the police and the
public, they maintained, justiﬁes a “ﬁrearm exception” to the
general rule barring investigatory stops and frisks on the
basis of bare-boned anonymous tips.

Id., at 214–215.

Seeking review in this Court, the State of Florida noted
that the decision of the State’s Supreme Court conﬂicts with
decisions of other courts declaring similar searches compati-
ble with the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., United States
v. DeBerry, 76 F. 3d 884, 886–887 (CA7 1996); United States
v. Clipper, 973 F. 2d 944, 951 (CADC 1992). We granted
certiorari, 528 U. S. 963 (1999), and now afﬁrm the judgment
of the Florida Supreme Court.

II

Our “stop and frisk” decisions begin with Terry v. Ohio,

392 U. S. 1 (1968). This Court held in Terry:

“[W]here a police ofﬁcer observes unusual conduct
which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his