On April 17, 2023, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Torres v. Ball[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law related to tips and reasonable suspicion. In Torres, Sergeant Ball received a look-out to help another agency locate a suspect, Torres, who was wanted in Buncombe County (NC) for breaking and entering and larceny, and nine other warrants in Henderson County. Sergeant Ball used their record management system to verify the two outstanding warrants in Buncombe County and checked Torres’ criminal history, which included assault with a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearm, intimidating a witness, threats, and drugs. Sergeant Ball then contacted a confidential informant (CI), who had “provided him with reliable information in the past.” The CI told Sergeant Ball that Torres was staying at 130 Flat Top Mountain Road in Fairview, North Carolina, and he was driving a dark green Honda Accord with dark tinted windows. Sergeant Ball, when not responding to dispatches, checked the address provided by the CI, as well as another address on record for Torres.
A few days later, at approximately 0300 hours, Sergeant Ball was checking the Flat Top Mountain Road location, and he observed a dark green Honda Accord in the driveway. This matched the description of the vehicle the CI said Torres was driving. Ball also saw a male near the vehicle. Ball drove past the residence and waited down the road. After a few minutes, the Accord drove past Ball’s location. Sergeant Ball followed the Accord, and it turned into a driveway on Old Fort Road. When the Accord was halfway up the driveway, Sergeant Ball activated his blue lights and initiated a stop.
The Accord continued to the top of the driveway and stopped. Sergeant Ball exited his car, drew his firearm, and shone his flashlight at the car. He immediately recognized the driver to be Torres, the wanted subject. With his weapon drawn, he ordered Torres to exit and lay on the ground, and Torres complied. Torres was taken into custody without incident.
Dispatch advised the vehicle was stolen. Ball conducted a search of Torres and located two cellophane wrappers that contained powdery substances, suspected to be methamphetamine and heroin. Ball searched the vehicle and discovered drug related objects. Sergeant Ball, in addition to the confirmed outstanding warrants, charged Torres with possession of a stolen vehicle, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Ultimately, the methamphetamine charge was dismissed because the lab never tested the substance. The other charges lodged by Sergeant Ball were dismissed as part of a plea agreement related to guilty pleas on other charges.
Torres filed suit against Sergeant Ball for violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment for allegedly stopping him without reasonable suspicion, the use of force during the stop, and malicious prosecution. The district court determined Sergeant Ball had reasonable suspicion for the stop and dismissed the suit. On appeal, Torres failed to argue the excessive force and malicious prosecution claims and stated those claims should only be considered if the court of appeals determined there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop.
The court of appeals then set out to determine whether Sergeant Ball had reasonable suspicion to stop Torres.
The court noted several primary legal principles relevant to this case. They are as follows:
[I]f police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229, 105 S. Ct. 675, 83 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1985)[ii]
When assessing the constitutionality of traffic stops, we employ a two-prong analysis: First, we “assess whether the articulated bases for the traffic stop were legitimate.” United States v. Palmer, 820 F.3d 640, 648-49 (4th Cir. 2016). “Second, we examine whether the actions of the authorities during the traffic stop were reasonably related in scope to the bases for the seizure.” [iii
[I]f sufficient objective evidence exists to demonstrate reasonable suspicion, a [Terry] stop is justified regardless of a police officer’s subjective intent.” United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 337 (4th Cir. 2008).[iv]
In cases where an informant’s tip supplies part of the basis for reasonable suspicion, courts must ensure that the tip possessed sufficient “indicia of reliability.” Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2000).[v]
It is well established that a known, reliable informant “is entitled to far more credence than an unknown, anonymous tipster.” Bynum, 293 F.3d at 197 (first citing Florida, 529 U.S. at 270; and then citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146-47, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1972)).[vi]
The court of appeals also discussed Adams v. Williams,[vii] which is instructive regarding unverified tips from known informants. In Adams, a person known to the officer approached and told the officer that a person seated in a nearby vehicle had a gun in his waistband and narcotics in the vehicle. The officer approached the stated vehicle and knocked on the window. The occupant rolled down the window, and the officer reached into the car to the occupant’s waistband and removed a fully loaded revolver. The gun was not visible to the officer from outside the vehicle. However, it was precisely where the informant stated it was located. The court stated
Because the officer knew the informant, the informant exposed himself to possible criminal prosecution or other consequences for giving false information, and part of the tip was immediately verifiable at the scene, the Court held that the tip carried enough indicia of reliability to establish reasonable suspicion and justify the officer’s stop, even though the Court questioned whether such a tip could establish probable cause. Id. at 147.[viii]
Additionally, the court of appeals noted that, while Torres characterized the CI in his case as “anonymous,” the informant was actually known to the sergeant. The court stated
[T]here is a difference between a purely anonymous tip from an ordinary citizen-informer and a tip from a confidential police informer.[ix]
Thus, a tip from a person known to the police is considered more reliable than a purely anonymous tip.
The court of appeals then examined whether the information known by the sergeant, along with the information provided by the CI, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop Torres. The court noted the following: (1) the CI provided Sergeant Ball with details about the make, model, color, and dark tinted windows of the vehicle Torres was driving; (2) the CI provided Sergeant Ball with a specific address where he could locate Appellant; (3) Sergeant Ball observed someone walking around a parked dark green Honda Accord with tinted windows in the driveway of the address provided by the CI; and (4) Sergeant Ball conducted a record check of Torres and learned he had an extensive criminal history and approximately 11 outstanding warrants, most for felonies. Based on these facts the court of appeals stated
The corroborating aspects of the tip sufficiently establish the informant’s reliability, and the totality of the circumstances provided Sergeant Ball with sufficient justification to conduct an investigatory stop for the purpose of determining whether Appellant was the Vehicle’s driver. See Hensley, 469 U.S. at 229 (noting that law enforcement interests are stronger where suspect is wanted for felony offenses “or crimes involving a threat to public safety“).[x]
Thus, the court of appeals held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of the vehicle to determine if Torres was in the vehicle.
The court then examined if Sergeant Ball’s actions after the stop were reasonably related to the scope of the stop. In Torres’ case, the sergeant identified Torres visually immediately as he approached Torres’ vehicle. Thus, the court held that the actions of the sergeant were reasonable related to the scope of the stop.
Because the stop was lawful, the court did not need to review the excessive force or malicious prosecution claims. The court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Ball.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
_____________________________________________
Citations
[i] No. 21-6447 (4th Cir. Decided April 17, 2023 Unpublished)
[ii] Id. at 12 (emphasis added)
[iii] Id. (emphasis added)
[iv] Id. at 12-13 (emphasis added)
[v] Id. at 13 (emphasis added)
[vi] Id. at 17-18 (emphasis added)
[vii] 407 U.S. 143 (1972)
[viii] Id. at 19
[ix] Id. at 17
[x] Id. at 21 (emphasis added)
