Opinion ID: 1737008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the Particular Stop was Warranted

Text: The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to arrest or to search for contraband or evidence of crime. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 881, 95 S.Ct. at 2580; Adams v. Williams, supra 407 U.S. at 145, 92 S.Ct. at 1922; Terry v. Ohio, supra . Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment requires that the detaining officer have knowledge of specific, articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the stop or seizure. United States v. Cortez, supra ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra ; Terry v. Ohio, supra 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1879; State v. Brown, 370 So.2d 547 (La.1979). An officer's knowledge of facts need not be based on his personal observations. On the contrary, an officer can, and in many situations must, act upon information supplied by another person, be it a fellow officer or an informant. This court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized that an informant's tip can provide a police officer with reasonable cause to detain and question a suspect. Adams v. Williams, supra ; State v. Wilson, 366 So.2d 1328 (La.1978); State v. Sims, 350 So.2d 1189 (La.1977). Informant's tips may vary greatly, however, in their value and reliability. One simple rule, or test for reasonableness, will not cover every situation. Adams v. Williams, supra 407 U.S. at 147, 92 S.Ct. at 1923. When the state asserts the reasonableness of an investigatory stop made in response to an informant's tip the reliability of both the informant and his information must be satisfactorily demonstrated, or, if the tip is inadequate under this standard, it may be deemed sufficiently trustworthy on the basis of corroboration by independent sources. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584,21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); State v. Brown, supra at 551; State v. Richards, 357 So.2d 1128 (La.1978). This standard must be maintained as a seizure based upon an unverified or undifferentiated tip derived from an undisclosed source would be unreasonable and, consequently, unconstitutional. State v. Wilson, 366 So.2d 1328 (La.1978). The tip in the instant case involved a detailed and particularized description of a single individual. Defendant was described as a black male by the name of James Flowers, who would be driving a white Chevette or Mercury in the 1500 block of Jefferson Street. Additionally, the informant indicated that defendant had in his possession items taken during the burglary-murder committed at that address on the previous day. The informant's familiarity with both the murder at 1500 Jefferson and James Flowers' plans to visit that area significantly reduced the chances that this information was unreliable. Although a tipster could easily link Flowers with a crime based purely on rumor, it would appear unlikely that he could so accurately predict Flowers' actions without personal knowledge of his affairs. Remoter still was the possibility that a clever enemy of an innocent James Flowers would bring about his encounter with police near a murder scene merely to inconvenience him. Once Flowers appeared in the white Mercury and stopped his car about a block from 1500 Jefferson, the possibility that the informant's story was truthful and reliable became substantial and much more likely than any other hypothesis. In this particular case there is very little chance that the tip could have been fabricated after the stop. The informant's tip was handled by two officers, with one of them making a written record of the call and the informant's statements, as the other, the dispatcher, placed a radio call into the field. Two additional officers testified that they heard the tip relayed by radio to Officer Michel. Consequently, because of the substantial corroboration of the tip and the peculiar circumstances involved before the encounter occurred, the risks usually associated with the use of an anonymous tip, i.e., lack of informant credibility or basis of knowledge and police fabrication, were substantially reduced. See generally LaFave, supra, § 9.3. Accordingly, we conclude that the information was sufficiently reliable and afforded the officer specific, articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, justified the temporary stop of defendant for questioning. The motion to suppress was correctly denied and the assignment of error based on this ruling is without merit. The remaining issues relate to the penalty phase of the bifurcated trial.