Opinion ID: 785535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Traditional Fourth Amendment Analysis

Text: 77 Although the district court did not decide this case on traditional Fourth Amendment grounds, it stated at the suppression hearing that the ordinary exigent circumstances exception, when you're trying to seek evidence of a crime rather than trying to determine if somebody in need of assistance can get that assistance, requires probable cause. And I agree [with the defendants] that in these circumstances, there is not probable cause present. Because the majority affirms the decision of the district court under its exigency/emergency/ Terry analysis, it does not consider whether the seizure of Beaudoin was justified by probable cause of criminal activity. I suspect, however, that the majority would agree with the district court, as do I, that the seizure of Beaudoin was not justified by probable cause of criminal activity, notwithstanding the presence of any exigent circumstances. 78 As noted in Part I, for Fourth Amendment purposes, probable cause exists where the officers at the scene collectively possessed reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a prudent policeman in believing that a criminal offense had been or was being committed. Tibolt, 72 F.3d at 969. The probable cause standard is a fact-specific concept that deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, ___, 124 S.Ct. 795, 800, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003); see Valente v. Wallace, 332 F.3d 30, 32 (1st Cir.2003) (noting that whether the requisite probability must be `more likely than not' [is] ... arguably unsettled; but, centrally, the mercurial phrase `probable cause' means a reasonable likelihood). Like the less demanding standard of reasonable suspicion, probable cause is dependant upon both the content of information possessed by the police and its degree of reliability. Both factors — quantity and quality — are considered in the `totality of the circumstances' — the whole picture — that must be taken into account when evaluating whether a search or seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion or by probable cause. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). Of course, probable cause is a more demanding standard than reasonable suspicion, both in terms of the detail of information and the degree of reliability required. See id. 79 An anonymous tip seldom demonstrates the informant's basis of knowledge or veracity and typically fails to give rise to reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. Id. at 329, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (finding that a detailed anonymous tip that a woman was carrying cocaine and predicting that she would leave an apartment building at a specified time, enter a car of a specified description, and drive to a specified motel would not, without further corroboration, have justified a Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion); see Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (holding that an anonymous 911 call lacked sufficient indicia of reliability for a showing of reasonable suspicion where the caller reported that a young man standing at a particular bus stop wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun). The anonymous 911 call to the Manchester police reporting a dead body and failed drug deal in a particular room at a particular motel did not provide anything approaching the degree of detail and specificity that might have supported the veracity of the information. See Khounsavanh, 113 F.3d at 288 (noting that there may be cases where an informant provides such a wealth of detail, with such a high degree of specificity that it is unlikely that the informant is inventing these assertions, and his veracity is supported through the very specificity and detail of his statement). The caller did not describe who was involved in the alleged events, when these events took place, how the alleged death occurred, how many people could be found inside the motel room, or how he knew about the information he proffered. In essence, the call consisted of a bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who provided little detail or predictive information and did not suppl[y] any basis for believing he had inside information about the defendants or the alleged events at the Kozy 7 motel. See J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375. 80 It is true that an anonymous tip with predictive detail that is then supported by corroborating facts may demonstrate sufficient reliability to give rise to a reasonable suspicion or, potentially, probable cause, of criminal activity. See J.L., 529 U.S. at 270, 120 S.Ct. 1375; Wood v. Clemons, 89 F.3d 922 (1st Cir.1996). However, there was precious little detail or corroboration at the time that the Hooksett police officers knocked on the defendants' motel room door and ordered Beaudoin to step outside. Arriving at the motel at about 5:30 a.m., the officers observed that a light was on inside Room 10, in contrast to the other darkened rooms of the motel. Sergeant Chamberlain noticed movement inside the room and subsequently observed Beaudoin pull back the curtain and look outside in response to the officers' knock on the door. When Beaudoin opened the door at the request or instruction of the officers, he did so only far enough to reveal his face. 81 I do not find it out of the ordinary that two individuals would be awake at 5:30 a.m. on a July morning when the sun had already begun to rise. As Officer Pinardi acknowledged at the suppression hearing, it was not very dark in July at that time of morning. Nor do I think that Beaudoin's decision to look outside the window before answering an early morning knock on his motel room door provides any corroboration of the anonymous and unidentified tip alleging a homicide or drug deal. As noted, he had no obligation to open the door at all. His hesitancy to voluntarily expose himself and the room to full public view when opening the door in response to a request from police officers visible in their uniforms could provide some indication of a guilty conscience. On the other hand, it could suggest a reasonable concern for safety, or for modesty, when strangers, even uniformed ones, unexpectedly knock on one's motel room door in the early hours of the morning. In any event, considered together, these facts were insufficient to corroborate an anonymous call devoid of details and to provide sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant a prudent policeman in believing that Beaudoin and Champagne had committed or were committing an offense inside the motel room. Tibolt, 72 F.3d at 969; see J.L., 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (holding that anonymous call alleging unlawful carriage of gun was not sufficiently corroborated by police observation of suspect matching the description and standing at the location reported by the caller to establish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry investigative stop of that individual). Hence, under a traditional Fourth Amendment analysis relating to the investigation of criminal activity, there was no probable cause basis for ordering Beaudoin to leave his room.