Opinion ID: 794394
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The student tip

Text: 23 Informants' tips ... may vary greatly in their value and reliability. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). The Supreme Court has instructed courts to evaluate informants' tips based on the totality of the circumstances, while allowing for the lesser showing required to meet the reasonable suspicion standard. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); see also id. at 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed ... 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 there is reasonable suspicion.). The totality of the circumstances includes an informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge, as well as whether the information an informant has provided is corroborated by independent investigation, because an informant who is right about some facts is more likely to be right about others. See United States v. Gagnon, 373 F.3d 230, 236 (2004); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (decisions applying the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis have consistently recognized the value of corroboration of details of an informant's tip by independent police work); United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 719-21 (2d Cir.2000). 24 Cyr's tip was made face-to-face (to Birdsall, at least), 6 by a known informant. See United States v. Salazar, 945 F.2d 47, 50-51 (2d Cir.1991) ([A] face-to-face informant must, as a general matter, be thought more reliable than an anonymous [] tipster, for the former runs the greater risk that he may be held accountable if his information proves false.); see also Adams, 407 U.S. at 146-147, 92 S.Ct. 1921 (noting that information from a known informant who came forward personally to give information was stronger than that from an anonymous tipster). Cyr claimed that her knowledge was based on a direct conversation with Phaneuf, and the tip itself was relatively specific as to the type and location of the drugs at issue. Of course, Cyr did not claim that she actually saw the marijuana, or that she saw Phaneuf placing marijuana or anything else into her pants. Cf. Cornfield, 991 F.2d at 1319, 1322-23 (teacher aide's observation of a suspicious bulge in student's crotch area, corroborated by two other people, was one factor among many that raised a reasonable suspicion justifying strip search). 25 Birdsall's affidavit claimed that Cyr was a trustworthy student, and Cipriano's affidavit claimed that Cyr was a highly respected and responsible office aid[e]. As a general rule, we are wary of vague or conclusory statements about an informant's reliability. See United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir.1992). There is no evidence that either Cipriano or Birdsall had ever previously relied on Cyr for information or knew Cyr to be a reliable source of information based on these past interactions. See id. at 340. Moreover, the record casts doubt as to whether Cipriano knew that the tip came from a respected and responsible student prior to the strip search. While Cipriano may have been entitled to rely on Birdsall's assessment of Cyr's trustworthiness or reliability, the record is devoid of the basis for Birdsall's belief that Cyr was a trustworthy student. 26 After receiving the tip, Cipriano apparently did not investigate, corroborate, or otherwise substantiate it prior to ordering the strip search. Cipriano's acceptance of one student's accusatory statement to initiate a highly intrusive search of another student—with no meaningful inquiry or corroboration—concerns us. See C.B. v. Driscoll, 82 F.3d 383, 388 (11th Cir.1996) (search of student's pocket based on informant's tip was reasonable because [a]dministrators . . . received at least some corroboration of the tip); cf. Gagnon, 373 F.3d at 236 (an informant who is right about some facts is more likely to be right about others). School disciplinary matters are typically complicated and difficult, and nearly always best left to the expertise of professional educators. Exceptions arise at the seldom explored outer edges of these responsibilities, particularly in cases such as this involving a strip search (and not the search of pockets, a back pack, a locker or a desk drawer). While the uncorroborated tip no doubt justified additional inquiry and investigation by school officials, we are not convinced that it justified a step as intrusive as a strip search.