Opinion ID: 3012383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Florida v. J.L.

Text: On October 13, 1995, an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. 529 U.S. at 268. After an unspecified amount of time, two officers approached the bus stop and noticed three young men, one of whom wore a plaid shirt. None of the young men was behaving suspiciously; no weapons were evident; and none of the young men ran. Id. The police officers frisked all three young men and found a _________________________________________________________________ 3. On appeal, Nelson has raised three issues. The other two issues -- one a challenge to the prosecutor's alleged vouching, and the other a challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), based on the District Court's failure to submit Nelson's recidivism to the jury -- we find to be without merit. The District Court found the vouching, which did not seek to divert the jury from the evidence or its assessment of it, not to constitute reversible error. We review the decision for abuse of discretion, and if we find error, we examine whether the error was of constitutional proportions; if not, we affirm if there is a high probability the error did not contribute to the conviction. But if the error does involve a violation of a constitutional right it must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Molina-Guevara, 96 F.3d 698, 703 (3d Cir. 1996). Applying that standard, we will not disturb the District Court's ruling. Regarding Apprendi, the use of prior convictions without a jury finding is explicitly excluded from the scope of Apprendi. See 530 U.S. at 490 (Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.). Only the Terry issue warrants extensive analysis. 5 gun on J.L. He was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possession of a firearm while under the age of 18. Id. at 269. In determining that the police were not justified in their stop of J.L., the Court noted several important factors: - the telephone call was from an unknown caller and an unknown location. - the officers had no other basis or observations to justify their actions. - there was no corroborating evidence to think the tipster had inside knowledge about the suspect and therefore to credit his assertion . . . . Id. at 270. In addressing Florida's arguments, the Court refuted assumptions and resolved controversies that had permeated decisions of the courts of appeals and district courts. The first of these was that an accurate description was sufficient to infer reliability. As the Court stated: An accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and appearance is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. Id. at 272. The Court also rejected the commonly-held perception that allegations of gun possession lessen the reliability that is otherwise required. The Court opined that the very rationale of requiring only reasonable suspicion, rather than probable cause, to warrant a Terry stop was precisely to accommodate the need for police to respond to dangerous situations posed by guns. While the Court acknowledged that some dangers might be great enough, or in some situations the expectation of privacy might be reduced enough, to justify a search without any indicia of 6 reliability (for instance if it was reported that a person was carrying a bomb), the Court emphasized that in all other instances, a stop is justified only if there is sufficient reliability to support a reasonable suspicion. Id. at 273-74.