Opinion ID: 1910407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unquestionably Honest

Text: Appellant also argues that an identified informant's tip is not entitled to presumptive reliability if it is not unquestionably honest. [11] His analysis of the law misses the mark. In the cases he cites in his reply brief on this issue, the presumptive reliability of an identified informant failed because of possible bias or motive to falsify, not because the informant was anything other than honest. In particular, there was nothing in this case to suggest that the informant had any bias or motive to falsify information. He was not an estranged spouse, [12] an angry offspring, [13] or a concerned neighbor [14] of the defendant  specific situations that may warrant closer than usual scrutiny because of the connections between the parties and their possible desire to harm one another. Furthermore, in those cases there was no information that could be instantly corroborated, as there was here. In the case at bar, the information provided by the caller was corroborated by the police officer within a minute of the telephone call, a fact which dispels much of the doubt (if there is any) about the reliability and veracity of at least a part of the caller's tip. [15] Appellant further contends that the informant's identity should have been examined more thoroughly by the police and that the tip should have been subject to greater scrutiny before the officer conducted a stop and frisk because the dispatcher seemed incredulous and possibly thought the informant was lying when he denied having given similar information a day earlier. [16] During the 911 call, the dispatcher asked the informant several times whether he had called to report the same information the previous day, and each time he said he had not. The dispatcher finally ended the inquiry after the caller denied that he called this same thing in yesterday, but from another location. [17] Appellant suggests that this exchange should have caused the police to investigate the tip more thoroughly before acting on it. We do not agree. The dispatcher knew the caller's name, address, and telephone number; furthermore, there was a tape recording of the call. The dispatcher, therefore, would have been able to trace the citizen if his tip was found to be false. Instead, the description of the suspect was corroborated within minutes, suggesting that at least the identifying information he provided was indeed true. [18] Cf. note 15, supra.