Legality of anonymous phone tips?

OK, Mrs. CaptMurdock and I have been having this argument (big shock…four years ago last Thursday was when we both said “I do,” and we haven’t agreed on a damn thing since. :)) about anonymous phone tips made to the police department.

Let’s say that I have a suspician that (just as an example, I wish no ill will on either of these gentlemen) our good friend and Doper elucidator was going to do bodily harm to our other good friend and Doper december. So I make an anonymous phone call to the police and say (cleverly disguising my voice), “Hey, go to december’s place and check it out. If he’s dead, go arrest elucidator, 'cause he did it.”

Now, the cops speed over to december’s place, and found the poor guy beheaded, dismembered and stuff in a sack. (Just reminding you, kids, this is all hypothetical, I just pulled a couple of names off the Board – I hate using that “Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones” crap). The police, ruling this foul play :), must now concede that a crime has been committed.

So , my question goes, now what? Do they have enough evidence to go arrest elucidator? Based solely on an anonymous tip that, to be sure, has so far been accurate? Isn’t the judge going to wonder “well, how did Mr. Tipster know all this?”

Comments from some of you genuine legal eagles would be most welcome.

…there is no other evidence in december’s house: no fingerprints, blood trail, hair, fibers, convenient photographs, eyewitnesses. So the only reason they would even look at elucidator is the anonymous phone tip. I don’t know if that is enough to even go look at luc, but Mrs. CaptMurdock disagrees. (Like I said, shocker).

So whaddaya think, sirs?

There is nothing to prevent the cops from suspecting elucidator, based merely on your anonymous phone call, but they would need something more before they had probable cause to search his apartment, for example, or to arrest him.

Anonymous tips have a long history. The most recent case to define the standard for anonymous tips is Florida v. J.L., which mandates that a tip must possess certain indicia of reliability before it may serve as a basis to establish probable cause.

There is no single factor that establishes reliability. The totality of the circumstances are examined. Anonymity cuts against reliability. But an anonymous tip may contain sufficient detail - perdicting things to be seen, actions taken, and the like - to overcome that problem.

In other words, if you merely said: “If he’s dead, go arrest elucidator, 'cause he did it,” that’s not enough. But if you said: “Watch elucidator; he’s going to carry a large, body-shaped satchel out of his apartment at 11:00 tonight and load it in the trunk of his 1998 green Toyota Camry. From there, he’s going to take I-87 to the city dump and dispose of the satchel there,” that would likely be enough to stop the Toyota en route and search it.

  • Rick

…and enough to pin you as a suspect as well. cause if you know the who, where, why, and when, the police are gonna ask one too… “HOW did you know all of this was going to happen?”

im sure anonymous tips are completely traceable as long as someone didnt use a payphone…

IANAL, but I’m sure this would not be enough to get a search warrant. However, there is nothing to stop the police from knocking on elucidator’s door to ask if he knows anything about the crime (not to arrest him). If he then consents to a search and evidence is found, it should be admissable at that point.

I’m sure that if someone put enough thought into making an anonymous tip that they were cleverly disguising their voice, hiding their identity would be the first thing they thought of.

The police have enough to obtain a search warrant of elucidator (and possibly also an arrest of his person) at his home on the anonymous tip. A magistrate will make a determination on whether probable cause exists based on the “totality of the circumstances.”

The courts have given the police a little leeway leeway in their use of anonymous tips in obtaining probable cause determinations. For probable cause to exist for a search, there must be a fair probability that the area or object searched contains evidence of a crime. Probable cause to arrest a person is determined on whether there is a fair probablity that a person has committed a crime. However, especially in the case of anonymous tips, the information given the magistrate must not be “a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others.” Generally, the information must be corroborated by extrinsic facts. Here an anonymous tip that accurately predicted a grisly murder (a corroborated tip if ever I heard one) also linked elucidator to it, almost certainly justification for at least a search of his home and car, and probably his arrest as well.

And now that I posted that I see that I reached exactly the opposite conclusion that Bricker did, which prompts me to go drag out some books…

With I might add, a little confusion…although this may just be one of those situations where prosecutors say “hell yes!” and defense attorneys say “no way!”

I too think this is right on the line; I would tend to say the cops do not have the PC for a search warrant on the facts as described in the hypo. But a few more facts, such as evidence that elucidator was in the neighborhood at the time of the crime might be enough. Of course, as Fat Bald Guy notes, there is no evidentiary requirement needed for the cops to go interview elucidator or investigate his ties to the victim. That might turn something up with does raise the PC to the appropriate level.

–Cliffy

Just to play with the hypothetical, on the bare words the the anonymous OP gives, it sounds like he’s got some doubts: “If he’s dead…” It sounds like the tipster himself isn’t sure of his facts. If the statement were something like: “You’ll find december face down in the bathtub with [grisly details of the hypothetical wounds deleted],” and the police go there and find december’s corpse in exactly that situation, that certainly gives the tip more reliability.

But there’s a problem here: just on that evidence, there are two equally probable suspects: elucidator, and the tipster, who may be trying to frame the good 'luc. Unless the tipster provides more information pointing to 'luc, I wouldn’t think the police have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest - they’d have grounds to investigate him, certainly, but not much more.

Bricker’s hypothetical would have more reliablity to it, because it’s predictive: if the police catch 'luc in the act, and the tipster calls back with further information, he’s started to develop a track record for reliability.

Non-lawyer speaking, but I’ve watched too much NYPD Blue and Law and Order. What they have with the anonymous call is a “lead”. A lead isn’t probable cause, but it is a direction to investigate. Following the lead can take you somewhere that does establish probable cause.

For instance, the lead is check out elucidator. So the cops go by and knock on the door, and elucidator opens the door in a bloody shirt. Suddenly the cops have probable cause to enter the apartment.

The ruling of probable cause is going to depend on the wording of the tip and amount of verifiable content it provides the “totality of the circumstances”.

I think the specifics of the circumstances fluctuate enough to explain the disagreement between Bricker and pravnik.

Well note that the police have “grounds” (in the sense of a legal right) to investigate anyone – there is no requirement for PC, reasonable suspicion, or anything else merely to investigate someone. (Although if the investigation proves harassing there may at some point be a due process requirement, as an original matter it’s simply not needed.)

I think Northern Piper’s factually-amplified hypo would give the cops enough for a search warrant of elucidator, and also enough for a search warrant for the tipster, if they could discover his identity. Irishman is also correct that this call would be a lead, but note there is no legal significance to a “lead” (outside of the PC it may provide) – it is merely a tactical advantage the police have, giving them reason to point their investigative machinery at elucidator instead of (or more likely, in addition to) december’s disowned son, his junkie neighbor, his business partner, or anyone who might have been involved in the crime.

–Cliffy

Having thought on it for a night, I’ll partially stick with my original assertion, that the location of the body may be enough corroboration to provide an indica of reliability in showing probable cause. However, I think Bricker is also right and that it may not be. I suspect that there isn’t case law directly on point on the facts as stated in the OP, because police/DA’s office aren’t going to test whether there’s probable cause with only the body as corroboration, they’ll generally investigate further on elucidator and build up the case so they’ll have more to present to the magistrate.

And if there wasn’t probable cause for the warrant and we find a bloody axe in decembers living room…no problem! Inevitable discovery! :wink:

Erm…make that elucidator’s living room…

So one would think, however…

I know someone who was once an anonymous tipster. They asked me for advice beforehand. I told them that they probably had enough information that a call to the tip line was warranted, but advised that they go do it from a pay phone on the other side of town.

Instead, they chose to place their trust in the well-publicised “you do not have to reveal your identity” tip line. After taking the tip information, the police phone person then asked the tipster for their full name/address/etc., telling them they had the number and address they were calling from up on their computer, and that the tipster now had two choices: (1) they could provide full contact info and the detective in charge of the case would get in touch, or (2) they could refuse and a patrol unit would be dispatched and they WOULD find the tipster and haul them down to the police station.

So yes, some people wish to remain anonymous but don’t bother to go to a pay phone :eek:

And everyone learned something! I learned I was not as paranoid as I thought I was, the police learned who committed a crime, and the tipster learned to never trust what the police say (at least in this town).

To be clear, here’s how I distill the hypo:

Cops get an anonymous call: “Hey, go to december’s place and check it out. If he’s dead, go arrest elucidator, 'cause he did it.”

Having discovered the dead body, do the cops have probable cause to obtain a search warrant for elucidator’s home, or an arrest warrant for elucidator?

The answer is no.

To establish probable cause to search, the state must show a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity related to the target of the search. A mere possibility is not enough. In determining whether probable cause exists courts will
test what the totality of the circumstances, as known to police
officers at the time.

In Florida v. J.L., police received an anonymous tip that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Officers approached the bus stop and saw three black men, one of whom was wearing a plaid shirt. Officers, without any reason other than the tip to suspect the man, detained and frisked him, finding a gun.

The Supreme Court held that wihtout more, the tip was insufficient to support even the stop and frisk authorized by Terry v. Ohio. A “Terry stop” requires less than probable cause - merely a reasonable, articulable suspicion that there is wrongdoing, and a frisk requires a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the officer’s safety is in jeopardy. The J.L. Court ruled that:

In Alabama v. White the police received an anonymous tip claiming that a woman was carrying cocaine and predicting that she would leave an apartment building at a specified time, get into a car matching a particular description, and drive to a named motel. Standing alone, the tip would not have justified a Terry stop. The Court went on to explain that if the tip offered anough predictions about what the woman would do that

Even then, the Court cautioned, it was a “close question”.

The key elements for an anonymous tip to serve as the predicate for probable cause are that the tipster provide sufficient indicia of reliability - with regard to predictive details about both the crime and the perpetrator thereof.

The anonymous tip in the hypo above lacks any such indicia of reliability. It doesn’t say when or how the murder was committed - whether december was shot, stabbed, beaten, or made to watch American Idol reruns. It doesn’t offer any information that can be verified prior to a search. It merely accuses.

If the tip had said that december was shot with a .357 magnum twice in the head, and the body bore those wounds… then you’re getting into close case territory. If the tip had said that december had been dead a week, and this was true, maybe…

But the bare hypo, above, does not provide any such indicia. It’s not enough for probable cause.

  • Rick

Those cases have strong, strong distinctions, brother Bricker. They involve anonymous tips that crimes are being committed without independant corroboration of any crime at all. Here, an anonymous tip led to the entry, under exigent circumstances, into an apartment to prevent a murder. When the apartment was legally entered, the evidence of the murder was legally found, thus establishing at least some reliability as to the informant as a source of information.

That’s a big difference from a bare assertion that a certain person is committing a crime, with no other evidence that a crime is being committed beyond the tip, as in the J.L. and White cases. If the anonymous tipster had said “there’s a kilo of grass in december’s house, and elucidator put it there”, no warrant could issue for either, because it lacks the crucial element of the OP: the exigent circumstances to enter december’s home and stop the murder that led to the discovery of the evidence. Under those circumstances the caller has established no reliability, but under the OP’s circumstances, he has. I’m not saying that a judge would definitely find probable cause from it, but it’s not a legally foregone conclusion, either.

Well, I agree it’s not a legally forgone conclusion… but if these were the facts in a case I was working, I’d be mighty pleased to be arguing the suppression motion for the defense and mighty discomfited to be arguing against the suppression motion for the prosecution. :slight_smile:

  • Rick

On that, we agree as well. :wink: