Court Opinion

ID: 9569296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:12:29.852506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:06.567871
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Defendant argues that the stop of his vehicle was illegal. In order *123for an anonymous telephone tip to provide a basis for articulable suspicion authorizing an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (88 SC 1868, 20 LE2d 889), the tip must provide some basis for predicting the future behavior of the subject of suspicion. McKinley v. State, 213 Ga. App. 738, 739-740 (445 SE2d 828).
The only information provided by the tipster in this case related to defendant’s plans to travel to South Carolina. If the tipster had such private information as defendant’s itinerary it would be much more reasonable for law enforcement officers to believe that the tipster had access to reliable information about any illegal activities of the defendant. Bentley v. State, 214 Ga. App. 580, 581 (2), 582 (448 SE2d 479).
When first observed, defendant’s vehicle turned east on Highway 84 which was toward 1-95, one of the obvious routes to South Carolina. But defendant then “turned up by the post office to . . . the IGA store, the little grocery store.” Officers lost sight of defendant’s vehicle and then soon found it again at an automobile parts store. Defendant’s vehicle was stopped immediately after it left the parts store. He had not committed any traffic offense, attempted to elude the officers, or engaged in any unusual behavior.
The State’s evidence shows defendant meandering about a small rural town and failed to confirm the one and only prediction of future behavior provided by the tipster, that defendant was going to South Carolina. In this connection, it should be noted that the officers knew defendant lived south of Midway so that his route into town would be consistent with the route to South Carolina. The only testifying officer who participated in the stop acknowledged that the law enforcement officers did not attempt to follow defendant to see whether he was going to South Carolina.
As the reliability of the tip was not established by confirming the accuracy of its predictions as to future behavior, there was no authority for a forcible stop of defendant. Moreland v. State, 204 Ga. App. 218 (418 SE2d 788). The consent to search, having followed immediately and without intervening circumstances from the felony stop during which officers approached defendant with guns drawn, must be viewed as the poisonous fruit of the illegal stop. Brown v. State, 188 Ga. App. 184, 187 (372 SE2d 514).
Insofar as some substitute for a prediction of the future behavior of the suspect may be found to establish the reliability of an anonymous tip, such is not established in the case sub judice. The goal is to corroborate the tip before acting upon it, and none of the factors listed in the majority opinion serve this purpose. The anonymous tip predicted a trip to South Carolina, not merely to the nearby town. Anyone in the general public could have seen defendant leave for the town and call with that information. The indication that the informa*124tion was acquired by personal observation just prior to the call was not subject to corroboration prior to the stop of defendant. And finally, the tip could not be corroborated by prior information known to police since the reliability of that prior information was not established. I would hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, therefore I respectfully dissent.
Decided February 7, 1996
Donaldson, Herndon, Bell & Metts, James C. Metis III, for appellant.
Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, J. Thomas Durden, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Judge Blackburn joins in this dissent.