Opinion ID: 2058218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Corroboration Criterion

Text: Equally troubling is the informant's failure to come forward with his information within a reasonable time soon after the transaction, particularly since this was not a controlled buy. Waiting up to three days to relay his information adversely impacted upon the reliability of the tip because it not only increased the possibility of fabrication, but also decreased the ability of the police to verify or corroborate the information. Based on our experience as judges in this matter, we can be sure that the testimony that the events occurred within the last seventy-two hours indicates that the events were more than forty-eight hours old but less then seventy-two hours old. The tip's reliability is further undermined by the police's inability to corroborate the link between the BMW and Jamie, one of the rare, true details provided by the informant. The police were only able to make a connection between the BMW and the Columbia Road address from which Goldston exited. Thus, contrary to the informant's tip, Goldston did not drive a BMW. While the majority styles this inconsistency as a seeming inaccuracy, the inability to verify this aspect of Jamie's modus operandi, as reported by the informant, presents a situation significantly different from what took place in Draper, supra, where all the details of the tip were verified. The majority perceive[s] no significant distinction between Draper,  the benchmark case on the value of corroboration, and this case. I believe this comparison is far wide of the mark. In Draper, as in Gates, the police were able to corroborate a range of details relating not just to easily obtained facts and conditions existing at the time of the tip, but to future actions of third parties ordinarily not easily predicted. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 245, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 (emphasis added). Thus in Draper, the tip revealed that the defendant would travel from Chicago to Denver by train either the morning of the 8th of September or the morning of the 9th of September, 358 U.S. at 309, 79 S.Ct. at 331. The informant, a paid special employee of the Bureau of Narcotics at Denver also gave a detailed physical description of Draper and of the clothing he was wearing, and said that he would be carrying `a tan zipper bag,' and that he habitually `walked real fast.' Id. (footnote omitted). As discussed supra, the tip in the present case was general and described mundane, easily predicted facts involving the travel routine of a citizen that spanned all of several city blocks. Nevertheless, the majority contends that it was sufficient for corroboration purposes that the informant identified Goldston coming out of the Columbia Road residence, and that he drove directly to the location the informant had previously identified. But see supra, note 9. The majority believes that such corroboration cures whatever unreliability problems may exist and supports the inference that the informant is trustworthy, and that he obtained his information in a reliable fashion. I cannot agree. While the corroboration of wholly innocent behavior frequently will provide the basis for a showing of probable cause, Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 243-44 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 n. 13; Jefferson, supra, 476 A.2d at 686 (such corroboration is of significant value), the corroboration must raise a reasonable suspicion of illegality. See Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 243-46, 103 S.Ct. at 2334-36. When viewed in conjunction with the other facts presented in the tip, no reasonable suspicion of illegality arose from Goldston's exiting the house, entering a car and driving to a location in the general neighborhood. Compare with Draper, supra, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329 and Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 243, 103 S.Ct. at 2334 (corroboration of innocent facts such as the couple's rather complex set of travel arrangements to Florida, which is well known as a source of narcotics and other illegal drugs.). We must also distinguish the present case from the situation where information is obtained through a controlled purchase. In the controlled purchase context, the independent, contemporaneous police observation of the informant's activities is generally deemed sufficient corroboration to establish probable cause. See Berry v. United States, 528 A.2d 1209, 1210 (D.C.1987); Stewart v. United States, 395 A.2d 3, 5-6 (D.C.1978); Jones v. United States, 336 A.2d 535, 537-38 (D.C.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 997, 96 S.Ct. 427, 46 L.Ed.2d 372 (1975); cf. Tyler v. United States, 298 A.2d 224, 227-28 (D.C.1972). In a controlled purchase situation, the police take careful measures to ensure that the information is reliable. Thus, the police accompany the informant to the designated location, search him for money and drugs, give him the police funds to make the purchase, observe him enter and exit the premises, and upon his return, search him again to retrieve the drugs. See Stewart, supra, 395 A.2d at 4-5 & n. 1; Jones, supra, 336 A.2d at 537. The contemporaneous observation of the illegal activity in this manner corroborates the informant's tip and lends steadfast support for further police action. Berry, supra, 528 A.2d at 1210 (issuance of search warrant based on informant's tip and police officer's observation of controlled purchase upheld); Stewart, supra, 395 A.2d at 5-6 (issuance of search warrant upheld where informant's tip was corroborated by police observation of controlled purchase); Jones, supra, 336 A.2d at 537 (issuance of search warrant upheld where informant's tip was corroborated by police observation of controlled purchase). This case, however, involves an allegation of illegal activity arising from an uncontrolled purchase that was unverified, uncorroborated and carries with it too few indicia of reliability. Furthermore, with few exceptions, the cases presented to this court on the issue of whether probable cause existed based on an informant's tip involved hot tips, where it was clear that the tip was given almost contemporaneously with the events the informant was describing, and the police were able to immediately respond to and check out the information. See United States v. Johnson, 540 A.2d 1090, 1090 (D.C.1988) (police arrived on scene within fifteen seconds of receiving broadcast of phone tip); Offutt v. United States, 534 A.2d 936, 937 (D.C.1987) (police arrived on scene within twenty minutes of receiving phone call); Berry, supra, 528 A.2d at 1210 (police sought search warrant seventy-two hours after observing a controlled buy); Groves v. United States, 504 A.2d 602, 602-03 (D.C.1986) (police responded immediately to broadcast of phone tip); Allen v. United States, 496 A.2d 1046, 1047, 1049 (D.C.1985) (immediate police response to phone tip). [10] Under these circumstances, the corroboration of innocent details takes on heightened significance and greater reliability because of the short time frame between the observation of the illegal event and all of its attendant innocent details, and the verification of those details by the police. Where, as in this case, the tip is dead cold, there must be other indicia reliability to support a finding of probable cause to arrest someone. [11] Allen, supra, and Jefferson, supra, are useful examples of cases where the circumstances warranted a finding of probable cause. Allen involved a tip by a concerned citizen who the police officer knew was active in her community's campaign against drugs and whose previous calls had resulted in the seizure of illicit drugs on several occasions. Allen, supra, 496 A.2d at 1047-48. Her tip was sufficiently detailed: a man wearing a pink shirt, blue jeans, and Nike tennis shoes was selling [drugs] at the corner of Fifth and O Streets. The caller had seen this man receive drugs from the passenger side of an orange Pontiac that was parked on the street, then distribute them to other persons on the sidewalk. Id. at 1047. The police arrived at the designated location within five minutes of receiving the call, where they saw a man fitting the tipster's description walking away from an orange Pontiac. Id. Under these facts, the scales tip heavily in favor of reliability: the informant was unquestionably trustworthy and her detailed tip, which the police corroborated in all of its innocent aspects within minutes of receiving the call, suggested that her information was reliable. In Jefferson, the police received a tip from an informant who stated that he had observed a woman wearing a blue coat, blue pants and weighing between 140 and 150 pounds, selling drugs inside a liquor store at 12th and U Streets. Supra, 476 A.2d at 685, 687. The police immediately responded to the location, whereupon they identified the woman as she exited the store. Although a police informant, the tipster had given information on at least nine occasions, and on each of these occasions the information led to arrests and the recovery of narcotics; the detective who received the tip in this case was personally involved in four of the nine cases with this informant; [and] the detective knew that other officers in his unit considered the informant to be reliable. Id. at 687. While the case for reliability is not as strong in Jefferson as it was in Allen, given the totality of circumstances, the indicia of reliabilitythe detailed description of an ongoing crime immediately corroborated by the police and an informant with a record for trustworthiness outweigh the indicia of unreliabilityan informant with inherently suspect and unverifiable motives, and no verification of illegal activity. In the present case, the scales tip in favor of unreliability.