Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 21, 2006

The police receive an anonymous tip that a black male wearing black clothing and walking through a parking lot has a gun. The police arrive within thirty seconds, see a black male wearing black clothing walking through the parking lot. He doesn't respond when the officers tell him to stop and take his hands out of his pockets, so they stop and frisk him, finding an Altoids tin containing PCP. (Talk about "curiously strong.") Good search or bad?

Bad, says the court in State v. Kittrell, reiterating that in order for an anonymous tip to furnish the basis for a stop, it "must provide more than a mere description of the person's appearance and location"; the police have to be able to corroborate some detail of the informant's tip which indicates that criminal activity is afoot before making the stop.  This is in accord with previous cases, such as this one, which contains a particularly nice quote at the end from Judge Timothy McMonagle extolling the values of the 4th Amendment, and this one

The lodestar, as we say in the law biz, on this subject remains the US Supreme Court case in Florida v. J.L., where the police received an anonymous tip that there was a young black male in a plaid shirt with a gun at a bus stop, the police arrived at the scene and observed a young black male in a plaid shirt at a bus stop, and a subsequent search revealed he had a gun.  The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the search.

I had a case last year which was almost on all fours, as we also say in the law biz, with J.L.  I won't mention the judge, but he would be universally regarded by defense attorneys as one of the fairest and most solicitous of constitutional rights.  I cross-examined the cop and got him, rather easily, to acknowledge that he hadn't seen anything other than what the anonymous tip had told him:  a black male at a certain place wearing certain clothing.  I gave the judge a copy of J.L., and he agreed that the search was bad.  As he walked off the bench, he mentioned that it was the first time in twelve years that he'd granted a motion to suppress.

And all I could think was that if this judge had granted a single motion to suppress in twelve years, the 4th Amendment was in a lot worse shape than I thought.

Search

Recent Entries

  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States
  • June 27, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A worrisome decision on expert funding, and, mirabile dictu, a court's dismissal of a case for a discovery violation is upheld
  • June 23, 2017
    Crime and the First Amendment
    Facebook and sex offenders, and encouraging someone to kill himself
  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.