Prado Navarette v. California
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Navarette v. California'', 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the
United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
clarified when police officers may make
arrest An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody (legal protection or control), usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questi ...
s or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in
California California is a U.S. state, state in the Western United States, located along the West Coast of the United States, Pacific Coast. With nearly 39.2million residents across a total area of approximately , it is the List of states and territori ...
received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered of
marijuana Cannabis, also known as marijuana among other names, is a psychoactive drug from the cannabis plant. Native to Central or South Asia, the cannabis plant has been used as a drug for both recreational and entheogenic purposes and in various tra ...
in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or ...
, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court,
Justice Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspective ...
Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to succeed Thurgood Marshall and has served since 199 ...
held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call. Justice
Antonin Scalia Antonin Gregory Scalia (; March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. He was described as the intellectu ...
wrote a "scathing"
dissenting opinion A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment. Dissenting opinions are no ...
, in which he argued that the tip was unreliable, and that the majority's opinion threatened the freedom and liberty of all citizens. Likewise, many commentators have noted ''Navarette'' represented a departure from earlier precedent, and that the opinion opened the door for expansive new police powers. Some commentators have also noted that the case leaves open several important questions, including the unanswered question of whether anonymous reports of extremely dangerous behavior require fewer indicia of reliability before police may act upon those reports. Other scholars have argued it was highly unlikely that Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were actually driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they were stopped by police.


Background


Fourth Amendment guidelines for traffic stops

Although criminal detentions usually require
probable cause In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. There is no universally accepted definition or f ...
that the suspect has engaged in criminal activity, an officer may conduct a traffic stop if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver is engaging in criminal activity. Officers may not rely upon a mere "hunch", but the level of suspicion required to conduct a traffic stop is “considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence”, and less than is necessary for probable cause. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has clarified that the reasonable suspicion required to justify a traffic stop depends upon "both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability", while taking into account “the
totality of the circumstances In the law, the totality of the circumstances test refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information rather than bright-line rules. Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts focus "on all the circumsta ...
— the whole picture.”


Fourth Amendment searches and seizures based on anonymous tips

In ''
Illinois v. Gates ''Illinois v. Gates'', 462 U.S. 213 (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case. ''Gates'' overruled '' Aguilar v. Texas'' and ''Spinelli v. United States'', thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circum ...
'', the Supreme Court established that courts should apply a "totality of the circumstances" test to determine whether an anonymous tip is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. Although officers in ''Gates'' did not personally witness any criminal activity, the Supreme Court held that the anonymous tip in question was reliable, because officers could verify several events predicted by the anonymous tip. Seven years after ''Gates'', the Supreme Court held in ''Alabama v. White'' that an anonymous tip was sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion to justify a temporary detention, because the tip accurately predicted several key details. Although the Court conceded that ''White'' was a "
close case In the law, a close case is generally defined as a ruling that could conceivably be decided in more than one way. Various scholars have attempted to articulate criteria for identifying close cases, and commentators have observed that reliance upon p ...
", the tip in question "exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability" to justify a temporary detention. The Court explained that if "an informant is shown to be right about some things, he is probably right about other facts that he has alleged, including the claim that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity." However, in '' Florida v. J.L.'', the Supreme Court ruled that police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect based on an anonymous tip “that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun.” The Court held that the tip "lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in ''White'' and essential to the Court’s decision in that case. The anonymous call concerning J.L. provided no predictive information, and therefore left the police without means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility.” The Court declined to create a "firearm exception" for anonymous tips, but the court noted in
dicta In general usage, a dictum ( in Latin; plural dicta) is an authoritative or dogmatic statement. In some contexts, such as legal writing and church cantata librettos, ''dictum'' can have a specific meaning. Legal writing In United States legal term ...
that a tip describing a bomb threat need not bear the indicia of reliability otherwise required of other anonymous tips. The
Supreme Court of California The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacra ...
would later rely upon this "bomb exception" in ''People v. Wells'', when it ruled that an anonymous tip that accurately described a vehicle “weaving all over the roadway” justified a traffic stop. The California court held that “considerations of public safety and common sense” permit officers to conduct traffic stops based on anonymous tips "to confirm the officer’s reasonable suspicion of intoxicated driving before a serious traffic accident can occur.”


Arrest and trial of Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette

On August 23, 2008, a
California Highway Patrol The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is a state law enforcement agency of the U.S. state of California. The CHP has primary patrol jurisdiction over all California highways and roads and streets outside city limits, and can exercise law enfor ...
("CHP") dispatcher in
Humboldt County, California Humboldt County () is a county located in the U.S. state of California. As of the 2020 census, the population was 136,463. The county seat is Eureka. Humboldt County comprises the Eureka–Arcata–Fortuna, California Micropolitan Statistica ...
received a 911 call from an anonymous caller. According to the dispatcher, the caller reported a silver Ford F150 pickup with the license plate number "8D94925" ran them off the highway. The caller stated that the truck was last seen heading southbound on
California State Route 1 State Route 1 (SR 1) is a major north–south state highway that runs along most of the Pacific coastline of the U.S. state of California. At , it is the longest state route in California, and the second-longest in the US after Monta ...
. CHP dispatchers relayed the report to officers in the geographic area, and the vehicle was soon spotted traveling southbound at mile marker 66 near
Fort Bragg, California Fort Bragg, officially the City of Fort Bragg, is a city along the Pacific Coast of California along Shoreline Highway in Mendocino County. The city is west of Willits, at an elevation of . Its population was 6,983 at the 2020 census. Fort ...
. Officers pulled over the vehicle and discovered that Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette were the only occupants. After standing next to the cab of the pickup truck, the officers noticed "a very distinct smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle". Officers then searched the vehicle and found four large bags containing of marijuana, an unopened box of oven bags, clippers, and fertilizer in the bed of the truck. On August 26, 2008, a felony complaint was filed in Mendocino County Superior Court, charging Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette with transportation of marijuana in violation of section 11360(a) of the California Health and Safety Code, and possession of marijuana for sale in violation of section 11359 of the California Health and Safety Code. On June 26, 2009, Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming that the traffic stop violated the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or ...
, because officers "lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity". However, the magistrate who presided over the suppression hearing, and the superior court, both rejected the motion. Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette subsequently pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana, and were sentenced to 90 days in prison and three years of probation. Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed an appeal in the
California Court of Appeal The California Courts of Appeal are the state intermediate appellate courts in the U.S. state of California. The state is geographically divided along county lines into six appellate districts.
, but the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. Relying on the "public safety" exception established in ''People v. Wells'', the court held that "ongoing danger to other motorists ustifiedthe stop without direct corroboration of the vehicle's illegal activity". The court noted that the vehicle was traveling on an "undivided two-lane road, thus raising the risk of a collision with oncoming traffic, which poses a particular risk to human life and limb." However, the court also held that the "anonymous tip itself had several indicia of reliability — the content of the tip strongly suggested it came from the victim and the tipster accurately described the appearance, location and direction of the vehicle." Lorenzo and Jose appealed again to the Supreme Court of California, but the Court declined to review their case. They then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted their petition for
certiorari In law, ''certiorari'' is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. ''Certiorari'' comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of ...
on October 1, 2013.


Opinion of the Court

Writing for a majority of the Court,
Justice Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspective ...
Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to succeed Thurgood Marshall and has served since 199 ...
held that the 911 call contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the traffic stop. Although he acknowledged that this was a "close case", Justice Thomas concluded that indicia of the 911 caller's reliability were stronger than those in ''Florida v. J.L.'', where the Court held a "bare-bones" tip was unreliable. Justice Thomas began his opinion by emphasizing that the Supreme Court had "firmly rejected the argument that reasonable cause for an investigative stop can only be based on the officer’s personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person.” By identifying the make, model, and license plate number of the pickup truck, Justice Thomas argued that "the caller necessarily claimed eyewitness knowledge of the alleged dangerous driving," and that basis of knowledge supported the tip's reliability. Furthermore, Justice Thomas concluded that " driver’s claim that another vehicle ran her off the road, however, necessarily implies that the informant knows the other car was driven dangerously." Justice Thomas also noted that the calls made through the 911 emergency system are particularly reliable, because calls are recorded and individuals may face prosecution for making false reports. Justice Thomas also clarified that officers need not "rule out the possibility of innocent conduct" before making a traffic stop based on an anonymous tip. In light of the facts described in the 911 call, Justice Thomas argued that the reckless driving described in the 911 call "
ear An ear is the organ that enables hearing and, in mammals, body balance using the vestibular system. In mammals, the ear is usually described as having three parts—the outer ear, the middle ear and the inner ear. The outer ear consists of ...
too great a resemblance to paradigmatic manifestations of drunk driving to be dismissed as an isolated example of recklessness."''Navarette'', slip op. at 9. He concluded that officers therefore acted reasonably "under these circumstances in stopping a driver whose alleged conduct was a significant indicator of drunk driving". Justice Thomas noted that many drivers will behave more cautiously when followed by police officers, and he concluded that there was no need to conduct " tended observation" in this case, because "allowing a drunk driver a second chance for dangerous conduct could have disastrous consequences".


Dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia

In his dissenting opinion, Justice
Antonin Scalia Antonin Gregory Scalia (; March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. He was described as the intellectu ...
argued that the majority's opinion was a "freedom-destroying cocktail."''Navarette'', slip op. at 10 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Although he recognized anonymous tips may sometimes be reliable, he rejected the majority's conclusion that "anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location." He wrote, " is is not my concept, and I am sure would not be the Framers’, of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." Justice Scalia argued that anonymous tips are inherently unreliable, because anonymous tipsters can "lie with impunity." While he admitted 911 calls are, in fact, easily traceable, Justice Scalia argued that there was no evidence the 911 caller knew they could be identified when they placed the call. Additionally, Justice Scalia distinguished the tip in this case from the tip in ''White'', where "the reliability of the tip was established by the fact that it predicted the target’s behavior in the finest detail — a detail that could be known only by someone familiar with the target’s business."''Navarette'', slip op. at 3 (Scalia, J., dissenting). He argued that the general details provided in this case's 911 call were unreliable, because "everyone in the world who saw the car would have that knowledge, and anyone who wanted the car stopped would have to provide that information." Likewise, Justice Scalia argued that there was no evidence that the report of being run off the road was actually true. Justice Scalia also criticized the majority's conclusion that the tip provided reasonable suspicion that Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were driving while drunk, because "the truck might have swerved to avoid an animal, a pothole, or a jaywalking pedestrian .... Or, indeed, he might have intentionally forced the tipster off the road because of some personal animus, or hostility to her 'Make Love, Not War' bumper sticker." Furthermore, Justice Scalia argued that one discrete instance of irregular driving does not give rise to the reasonable suspicion of an ongoing threat of an intoxicated driver on the road. Justice Scalia also argued that the anonymous tip's claims of reckless driving were ultimately discredited by the fact that officers followed Lorenzo and Jose for five minutes, but observed nothing suspicious. He wrote, "I take it as a fundamental premise of our intoxicated-driving laws that a driver soused enough to swerve once can be expected to swerve again — and soon. If he does not, and if the only evidence of his first episode of irregular driving is a mere inference from an uncorroborated, vague, and nameless tip, then the Fourth Amendment requires that he be left alone." In his concluding remarks, Justice Scalia wrote " unken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference .... After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving."


Subsequent developments

Many federal circuit courts and
state supreme court In the United States, a state supreme court (known by #Terminology, other names in some states) is the supreme court, highest court in the State court (United States), state judiciary of a U.S. state. On matters of State law (United States), st ...
s interpreting ''Navarette'' have affirmed the rule that officers need not personally corroborate incriminating details before making an arrest based on information provided by an anonymous tip. However, other courts interpreting ''Navarette'' have held that uncorroborated anonymous tips are not sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity. Additionally, courts in some jurisdictions have held that in order for officers to act upon an anonymous tip, the tip must provide a report of an ''ongoing'' crime, rather than a report of an isolated event that occurred in the past. Some courts have also rejected the assertion that the availability of caller information makes 911 calls inherently reliable. However, some courts have agreed with the notion that 911 calls are more reliable because callers may face criminal prosecution for making false reports. Other courts interpreting ''Navarette'' have held that the case established that less reliability is required when anonymous tips report "serious crime or potential danger".


Analysis and commentary


Immediate reactions

After the Court released its opinion, many commentators suggested that ''Navarette'' represented a significant expansion of the police's power to stop drivers on the road.
Lyle Denniston Lyle Denniston (born March 16, 1931) is an American legal journalist, professor, and author, who has reported on the Supreme Court of the United States since 1958. He wrote for SCOTUSblog, an online blog featuring news and analysis of the Suprem ...
, for example, remarked that the Court's opinion "gave police broad new authority." In its review of cases from the 2013 term, the
Harvard Law Review The ''Harvard Law Review'' is a law review published by an independent student group at Harvard Law School. According to the ''Journal Citation Reports'', the ''Harvard Law Review''s 2015 impact factor of 4.979 placed the journal first out of 143 ...
suggested that "''Navarette'' may add to the police's already expansive power," and that the case "heralds unwarranted curtailment of Fourth Amendment protections." Other commentators remarked that the case "seemed to lower the bar for assessments of anonymous tipsters." Paul Kleven, attorney for Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette, said that the ruling "makes it easier for anonymous tipsters to call in and sic police on people they don't like," while a spokesperson for the
California Attorney General The attorney general of California is the state attorney general of the Government of California. The officer's duty is to ensure that "the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced" (Constitution of California, Article V, Section ...
's office said " are pleased with the court's ruling, which supports the hard work of law enforcement."


Scholarly analysis

Scholars have observed that ''Navarette'' marked a departure from earlier precedent on the subject of anonymous tips, and some have argued that the case signifies a "dilution" of the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion standard. One analyst argued that this departure "could encourage passive and sloppy policing, for officers will be tempted to rely on easily acquired anonymous tips rather than engage in arduous collection of evidence." Commentators have argued that Justice Kennedy's endorsement of the reliability of anonymous 911 calls signified a departure from earlier decisions that analyzed the reliability of tips under a totality of the circumstances framework.Christopher D. Sommers, ''Presumed Drunk Until Proven Sober: The Dangers and Implications of Anonymous Tips Following'' Navarette v. California, 60 327, 352 (2015). These commentators suggest that this departure "increases the risk of fabricated tips." Some analysts have also observed that the Court's opinion left several questions unanswered from earlier anonymous tip cases, including the question of whether there was an exception for dangerous crimes, and that the Court "missed an opportunity to give lower courts some much needed guidance." One commentator wrote, " e time bomb mentioned in ''J.L.'' is still ticking". Another commentator argued that because Lorenzo Prado Navarette's driving was "irreproachable" for at least five minutes, "the probability that Lorenzo Navarette was legally drunk was surely less than the probability for the average daytime driver of a pickup truck; indeed, it ostensibly was all but zero."Joshua C. Teitelbaum
''Probabilistic Reasoning in'' Navarette v. California
62 158, 167 (2014).


See also

*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 572 External links {{SCOTUSCases, 572 Lists of 2013 term United States Supreme Court opinions ...
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases This page serves as an index of lists of United States Supreme Court cases. The United States Supreme Court is the highest federal court of the United States. By Chief Justice Court historians and other legal scholars consider each Chief J ...
*
Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume The following is a complete list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court organized by volume of the ''United States Reports'' in which they appear. This is a list of volumes of ''U.S. Reports'', and the links point to the contents of e ...
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court This is a partial chronological list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court during the Roberts Court, the tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts John Glover Roberts Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an American lawyer and jurist ...


Notes


References


External links

* {{US4thAmendment, reasonable suspicion, state=expanded United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court 2014 in United States case law