Opinion ID: 3012185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant Myrieckes

Text: Myrieckes contends that the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs found in the car. Police may, however, stop and search a car when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 226 (1985). Here, there was more than enough evidence to meet that standard. The police received a tip from an informant who was willing to meet with the police and to sign a statement that he understood giving false information to the police was a crime. A tipster willing to identify himself to police is more reliable than an anonymous tipster. See United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350, 354 (3rd Cir. 2000). To create reasonable suspicion, a tipster must predict some, but not necessarily all, of the suspects’ actions. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990). This tipster was quite accurate. He correctly predicted that Myrieckes, Andrews, and a woman would leave town with a woman driving. He correctly identified the time they would leave and even gave the licence number of the car. He also claimed the defendants were going to Cleveland. The police saw the defendants return to town on one of the main routes from Cleveland after being gone for a period of time consistent with a trip to Cleveland. In addition the police had arrested both defendants several times on suspicion of drug activity. That is sufficient information to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. We will affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.