Opinion ID: 2390645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credibility and Reliability.

Text: In the present case, it is difficult to assess credibility or reliability because we know virtually nothing about the informant. As the Court observed in White, supra, 110 S.Ct. at 2415, [t]he opinion in Gates recognized that an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant's basis of knowledge or veracity inasmuch as ordinary citizens generally do not provide extensive recitations of the basis of their everyday observations and given that the veracity of persons supplying anonymous tips is by hypothesis largely unknown, and unknowable.[ [8] ] The government contends that the tipster was a citizen volunteering information rather than a paid informant, and that a citizen is prima facie a more credible source than a paid police informant. Allen, supra, 496 A.2d at 1048, quoting Rushing v. United States, 381 A.2d 252, 255 (D.C.1977). Although, technically, the government is rightBrown's counsel conceded in the trial court, after listening to the radio run, that the report was made by such a citizenthe tipster's anonymity precludes any productive exploration of his or her arguably enhanced credibility. [9] The presumption in favor of the credibility of citizen informants is based on the assumed absence of ulterior motives. Rushing, supra, 381 A.2d at 255 n. 3. The testimony presented by the government in the present case, however, revealed absolutely nothing about the tipster's motivation. He or she may have been a public-spirited individual. Alternatively, the call might have come from somebody's mendacious and mortal enemy. Indeed, for all that this record tells us, the tipster may well have been another police officer who had a `hunch'.... White, supra, 110 S.Ct. at 2418 (Stevens, J. dissenting). Paid informants are supposed to be less reliable than ordinary citizens because they are generally drawn from the criminal milieu. Rushing, supra, 381 A.2d at 255 n. 3. We have no idea, however, whether the informant here was or was not a criminal ( e.g., a drug dealer seeking to protect his terrain). In light of these considerations, courts are properly wary of sustaining seizures on the basis of anonymous tips, and require a substantial measure of corroboration of information anonymously provided. An uncorroborated tip by an informer whose identity and reliability are both unknown does not constitute probable cause to make an arrest. Contee v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 299, 215 F.2d 324, 326 (1954); see also Wrightson, supra, 95 U.S.App.D.C. at 392, 222 F.2d at 558. [A] citizen who prefers to remain anonymous would seem less reliable than a citizen willing to accept personal responsibility for his accusations. Rushing, supra, 381 A.2d at 255. Where its informant is known to the police, the government has a stronger case than obtains in the case of an anonymous telephone tip. Adams, supra, 407 U.S. at 146, 92 S.Ct. at 1923; accord, Groves v. United States, 504 A.2d 602, 605 (D.C.1986) (informant's credibility enhanced where he was willing to identify himself). A named and identified person is not a `faceless informer' whose inarticulated self-interest would render his information automatically suspect. Commonwealth v. Atchue, 393 Mass. 343, 346-47, 471 N.E.2d 91, 94 (1984). A person who does not hide behind the cloak of anonymity, but who voluntarily comes forward and identifies himself or herself, is more likely to be telling the truth because he or she is presumably aware of the possibility of being arrested for making a false report. State v. Lindquist, 295 Minn. 398, 399-400, 205 N.W.2d 333, 335 (1973). See generally W. LAFAVE, supra, § 3.4(a), at 722-725. In the present case, the tip was communicated to the police by telephone, rather than in person. [A]nonymity takes on even greater significance where there has not even been a face-to-face confrontation between the person giving the information and the police. LAFAVE, supra, § 3.4(a) at 723. A tipster establishes his credibility as an interested citizen by identifying himself and otherwise cooperating with law enforcement officials in a manner consistent with the best interest of society. Rohrig v. State, 148 Ga.App. 869, 870-71, 253 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1979). By contrast, an anonymous telephone tip is of the weakest reliability, People v. Crea, 126 A.D.2d 556, 559-60, 510 N.Y.S.2d 876, 880 (2d Dept.1987), and an unverified one do[es] not support or contribute to a probable cause determination. Burks v. State, 293 Ark. 374, 378, 738 S.W.2d 399, 402 (1987). This is not to say, of course, that information from a person not known to police may never be taken into account. LAFAVE, supra, § 3.4(a), at 724. Gates and White demonstrate the contrary; if the information has been substantially corroborated, the tip may be sufficient. Where the informant not only provides information as to facts or events observable by anyone ( e.g., that a man in a white T-shirt and blue jeans is standing at a given corner) but also successfully predicts events that have not yet occurred at the time of the tip but which are thereafter verified by police, this may provide sufficient indicia of the informant's credibility (as well as his or her basis of knowledge) to justify a stop. White, supra, 110 S.Ct. at 2415, see Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 245, 103 S.Ct. at 2335. There is no such evidence in the present record, however, and to the still substantial extent that the informant's credibility plays a role in the assessment of the totality of the circumstances, the anonymous telephone caller remains near the less reliable end of the spectrum. [10]