Opinion ID: 804146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Barroso had Reasonable Suspicion

Text: Barroso had reasonable suspicion because the tipster provided specific, timely, and predictive information that was verified by officers in the field. Although the tipster here was anonymous—in that he refused to give his name—his credibility and reliability were enhanced by the LPD’s collection of his phone number and the tipster’s subsequent phone calls with Garcia, see Gomez, 623 F.3d at 269, as well as the tipster’s explanation that he knew about the weapons because he personally knew Bustamante and was present when the weapons were loaded into the truck, see J.L., 529 U.S. at 271. To be sure, the tipster twice gave Garcia information about the truck’s location that could not be verified, but the tipster ultimately updated Garcia on the correct location of the truck. In addition to the truck’s location, the tipster also provided other specifics about the truck, such as its color, license plate number, and driver. Many of these specifics were verified by officers in the field while the truck was parked on Benavidez Street. Moreover, the tipster correctly predicted that the truck would depart Benavidez Street in the direction of Pico Road not long after nightfall. We therefore agree with the district court that the tip provided the sort of specific, timely, predictive, and up-to-date information that gives rise to reasonable suspicion. See Martinez, 486 F.3d at 861. Finally, we reject Bustamante’s argument that Barroso himself needed to have personal knowledge of the facts that gave rise to reasonable suspicion; it was sufficient that Barroso stopped Bustamante’s truck in reliance on the BOLO which was itself supported by Garcia’s reasonable suspicion. See Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d at 759.