Opinion ID: 2318754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Reasonable Suspicion Established

Text: In the present case, the informant told Detective Popp that two black males, one lighter in complexion than the other, would arrive at a specific parking lot between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to deliver bundles of heroin. He also said that when they arrived, they would back into one of four specific parking spots. Detective Popp saw a 2003 Infinity G35 pull into the designated parking lot carrying two black males, and watched it back into one of the four spots identified by the informant. Detective Popp then received contemporaneous confirmation from the informant by cell phone that the car they had observed back into the parking space was the correct one before he ordered his team to move in. As in White, the informant presented information that predicted the actions and methods that Miller would employ. In White, the informant accurately predicted the time, method (defendant would deliver in a brown Plymouth, would carry drugs in a brown attaché case), place of origin (defendant's apartment), and destination of the delivery (Dobey's Motel). In this case, the informant accurately predicted the time (11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.), the method (would arrive in a vehicle and back into one of four parking spots), and the destination of the delivery (Town Court Compton Townhouses). Unlike the facts in Florida v. J.L ., here the informant accurately predicted the specific actions of Miller. In this case, the record also reflects that the informant was more than an anonymous tipster. Anonymous tipsters generally make contact with the police by calling 911. This informant made contact with Detective Popp on multiple occasions, and even made contact with the police contemporaneous to the investigatory operation. [30] This suggests some sort of familiarity between the police and the informant. For these reasons, the informant's tip was more reliable than the information of a one-time anonymous caller. The Superior Court properly denied Miller's motion to suppress evidence. The informant's ability to predict specific future behavior of the subjects demonstrated his knowledge of inside information and illegal criminal activities. [31] We hold that the specific predictive information that was independently corroborated by the police officers constituted reasonable articulable suspicion justifying Miller's seizure. [32]