What Are Anonymous Tips?
Law enforcement is certainly no stranger to anonymous tips. Such tips have been around for as long as people have been willing to call the police with a suspicion, but without a verified name. Numerous television shows and movies have used the concept of an anonymous tip as a plot device or storyline. But what does the law actually say?
In a criminal case, an anonymous tip generally refers to any information which is provided to law enforcement which does not include the identity of the person providing the information. An anonymous tip may be anonymous in the sense that both the police and the public are unaware of the identity of the person providing the tip, or it may just be undisclosed – meaning that the police are aware of the source of the information, but the public is not. A good example of this type of anonymous tip could be a phone call to 911 which contains all of the relevant information but does not reveal who made the call . A phone tip to law enforcement "hotline" could also be a good example if that particular service did not have caller id capabilities, but received otherwise credible information.
While the ability for law enforcement to take action based upon an anonymous tip varies by jurisdiction, it is generally true that some detail must be contained within the tip. Just as is required for a search warrant, a "with particularity" approach must be undertaken. For example, a tip of "there are guns in the house" would probably not be enough for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant, since it does not disclose information as to where the guns are located, who owns them, or how they got there. A better tip would be "Mr. Smith has a gun cabinet in his living room." In this case, law enforcement may be able to take action.
The Law Surrounding Anonymous Tips
Nevertheless, the probable cause standard for a law enforcement officer to further investigate on the basis of an anonymous tip has been further clarified in a series of cases by the U.S. Supreme Court relating to drunk driving situations. In Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its first decision in relation to anonymous tipsters, and held that an anonymous tip must have enough indicia of reliability to provide probable cause for police to stop an individual. A school resource officer received a report of a young man at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt that would be carrying a gun. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). The police officer received this information from a teletype (the equivalent of today’s citizen report using text or email) from an unknown member of the public. The officer was not given any other information about the suspect or his vehicle other than the man was at the bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt. This ruling means that probable cause must be provided by what is reported from the anonymous tipster, rather than the officer observing something evidence while observing the suspect. While the tipster provided reliable information regarding the plaid shirt, simply stating that the suspect wore a plaid shirt was insufficient for the officers to stop the suspect.
Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on three more cases involving anonymous tips regarding drunk driving suspects. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990), the anonymous tipster advised the police as to the suspect’s location and that he would be driving a particular car. The police observed the suspect within five minutes and observed that he was driving the particular vehicle. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990). The officer stopped and questioned the suspect. White 496 U.S. at 327. The officer did not know where the suspect was coming from or where he was going. Reasoning that the tipster could have given a false report without the suspect’s presence of the scene, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the initial anonymous tip of the suspect’s location was not sufficient evidence of probable cause to stop the car. Thus, the suspect’s arrest was not supported by probable cause as his location was all that was known. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).
The U.S. Supreme Court’s third case involved a drunk driving suspect in the case of Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. ___ (2014). In Navarette, the suspect fled the scene after hitting another vehicle, causing minor injuries, and continuing in the driver’s vehicle. The officer relied that this information provided by an anonymous tipster was enough probably cause to stop the suspect’s vehicle. There was no corroborating of the caller’s information to give rise of probable cause. Just like the findings in J.L. and White, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the anonymous information "was reliable in its assertion of illegality, but not in its assertion that the vehicle that the officer stopped contained the violator." Navarette, 572 U.S. ___ (2014). The actions of the suspect gave reason for the officers to further investigate.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Navarette on the heels of their ruling in Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct.1050 (2013). The U.S. Supreme Court provided law enforcement with probable cause in the case of Harris, where there was no basis to question the informant that provided the tip. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the reliability of the informant is determined by what information is provided to the officer that can be determined on its own as reliable by the officer. The officer in Harris identified that the informant’s tip included the information of identifying evidence, providing the suspect’s location, that the suspect had committed a recent crime, and that the suspect’s location was in proximity to a drug known area. Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013). This information meant the officers’ actions on the suspect were lawful. The suspect was found in possession of methamphetamine, irregular scales, drug paraphernalia, and unclaimed currency. The trial court denied the suspect’s motion to suppress the evidence found during the stop based on the information provided in the anonymous tip. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the trial court.
The court in Harris explained that using a dog to sniff for narcotics is similarly reliable based on the value of the dog’s ability to indicate the presence of drugs. In Harris, the defendant by the reliability of the dog’s alert that provided the probable cause to proceed with a search of the vehicle. Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013).
Law enforcement agents should be aware of the boundaries of their power regarding the use of anonymous tips to stop, search and arrest individuals.
The Use of Anonymous Tips for Criminal Charges
Anonymous tips are frequently used by law enforcement as a foundational component of criminal investigations. Sullivan v. City of New York, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50501 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2006) ("Police officers are free to act on anonymous tips…."). Anonymous tips can be received by law enforcement officers from a number of sources, including 9-1-1 calls, citizens who stop officers on the street, radio and network dispatch, and flyers.
Some jurisdictions also have "tip hotlines" for confidential tips, and TipSubmit is one of the companies that has developed technology that can be used to receive anonymous tips. TipSubmit (online at www.tipsubmit.com) describes its product as follows: For the past 10 years, TipSoft has been the most widely adopted solution for anonymous reporting available on the market. Now, TipSoft is available on all major platforms ranging from cell phones to IP Cameras, the internet and even media outlets. [ …. ] Use TipSoft and the latest reporting technologies integrated with a seamless tip management system to increases your reporting from the community, school districts and surrounding regions.
Hotlines may also be funded by grants and special revenue sources and can be under the direction and control of private entities, such as the We Tip hotline in California. As noted on its website, We Tip provides "toll-free, crime-report hotline services" which are "used by local police departments, schools, and businesses in the U.S., Canada and Virgin Islands" (www.wetip.com).
Crimes reported through hotlines are often very specific, for example, to solicit tips about school violence. The concern is that if a violent act is planned to occur on school premises, it may be too late by the time the caller gets through to campus security to provide the information. In addition, the specificity of the information may be more difficult to relay to dispatch or law enforcement, and can pose problems for the dispatcher if the information is inaccurate, delivered in an overheard whisper, or if there are overlapping communications taking place. Some law enforcement agencies receive tips directly through their websites. For example, the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office in Nevada, advises visitors to its website that they may "report information about any suspicious activity by calling the Office or [by submitting tips, anonymously, through the Web Tip form on the Office’s] website" (www.washoesheriff.com).
Anonymous tips may also be received by text messaging. AT&T, on its website (online at att.com), informs users that its customers can "send tip information via SMS for a variety of different service providers, including mobile marketing services, crime tips, etc." The text messages reportedly do not include the sender’s phone number, so that senders can "stay anonymous." In the ongoing California murder trial of Scott Lee Peterson, posters on college campuses have asked the public to text-message the California Highway Patrol with tips about the location of the remains of Laci Peterson, and a billboard has been placed near the alleged murder scene by email a tip to a special sheriff’s email address.
Regardless of the tip source, in the citizen-informant line, each tip must be analyzed to determine whether it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, whether it falls within a hearsay exception, and whether it is admissible. Possible exceptions to the hearsay rule to be considered may include the excited utterance exception, the present sense impression exception, or even a "catch-all" hearsay exception. Wiley v. State, 28 A.3d 713 (Md. 2011); State v. Dominick, 318 S.C. 97, 456 S.E.2d 756 (1995); Robinson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. App. 2004). Hearsay exceptions or analyses of the legality of hearsay in criminal cases are often applied differently than in civil cases. Strauss v. State, 575 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1991); State v. Hill, 980 P.2d 66 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999); McIntosh v. State, 103 P.3d 29 (Wyo. 2004).
Whether anonymous tips are admissible in court is a fact-intensive inquiry. However, it is clear that law enforcement officials are using them, and their effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) depends (at least in part) upon their designation, source, content, and accuracy.
Advantages and Disadvantages
One of the biggest challenges to the use of anonymous tips is one of basic reliability. Without the ability to verify the witness’ identity, there is no way to confirm if it is simply someone crying wolf for thrills, improper purposes, or someone with genuine knowledge of a crime. A second challenge is to the credibility of anonymous witnesses – without knowing the background of the witness there are potential biases that cannot be properly evaluated. Third and perhaps the most difficult is weighing the limitations of the system against the potential risks of releasing information to the public in the hope of finding a tip that may bring someone to justice.
All of this would seem to be a pretty effective argument against the use of anonymous tips by courts and law enforcement – however , it is not. Criminal justice systems (including law enforcement) are governed by the dual principles of Justice and the protection of the Defendant’s rights. A critical first step when investigating a crime is to obtain a credible witness who can provide detailed information to law enforcement so that the investigation can proceed. While there are limits on this sort of activity (such as following an individual without acting as soon as you’ve obtained their name, address, phone number, etc.), and even declination of the case depending on the facts involved, there is an inherent balance of risk to the integrity of the criminal justice system by suspecting an individual and taking no further action based on private information provided to them – as opposed to insider information suggesting that an individual purchase fireworks and dump them in a national forest, implying certain intent while causing a risk to national parks and potentially inspiring copious wildfires.
The good news is that as a direct result of all this, anonymous tips may, in fact, be admissible under the right circumstances.
Cases That Mention Anonymous Tips
Throughout many cases, courts have had to grapple with how to treat anonymous tips. In one such case, the California Court of Appeal, in a lengthy appellate opinion, rejected an anonymous tip about a possible drunk driver who allegedly fired shots at another car. The court held that "the number of shots described by the anonymous caller does not support a reasonable inference as to whether the shooter was firing at a human target or perhaps firing shots into the air."
In a Georgia case, the Georgia Supreme Court applied "the common sense approach to evaluation of the investigatory stop" and held that the anonymous tip that the defendant was carrying a gun was sufficient to justify a constitutional investigatory stop. The court based its determination on the fact that the guy giving the tip was "a dozen young men engaged in an impromptu car chase using their cellphones to record the activities of another motorist whom they may have witnessed firing a gun from the passenger side of the car."
The New Jersey Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in another case involving a gun by another social media outlet, Craigslist. The Craigslist tipster reported that an apparently intoxicated defendant while driving a "white car" was waving a gun from the sunroof of the car, facing traffic on the highway. Police pulled over the specific car and found the gun in its trunk. The court found that even if the citizen did not provide the specific make and model of the car, that was not an issue because probable cause is based on non-technical, commonsense evaluations. The terrors that people now have with guns make the analysis different today than it was a few years ago.
Are Anonymous Tips Here to Stay in the Future?
The treatment of anonymous tips is likely to continue evolving both in the courts and in the general enforcement community. Technology and science has advanced to a point where the problem of identifying the sources of anonymous tips is becoming much less daunting. Because the theory behind the Fourth Amendment is that the government cannot infringe on a person’s rights in unreasonably invasive ways, those engaged in law enforcement will always be beholden to this risk-benefit analysis and should always be on lookout for ways to make their practices more precise and targeted.
In the coming years, tips will be increasingly utilized by law enforcement agencies, and the treatment of these anonymous tips will need to follow suit. The arenas where this is most evident are in commercial trucking, commercial motor vehicles (CMV), and the airline industries. Law enforcement agencies on all levels are taking advantage of tips. In the trucking industry, companies such as Trucker Path has created technology that utilizes GPS technology to share truck drivers’ locations to assist other truck drivers to find locations to park. Its a tip driven app for the trucking industry, and there are many other such apps for the trucking industry.
With the increased use of technology and expanding monitoring of social media, consumer and state or federal regulators across industries are faced with "tips" that are broadcasted at a viral level and that they cannot reasonably ignore. Statements on social media have been deemed "tips" for the purpose of investigations, such as those directed at a restaurant from a disappointed customer on Yelp.
Tips are being utilized across industries to communicate with employees. Central banks are using text messaging, instant messaging, and apps to relay tasks and information to employees .
The future of tips may require robust computer programs that consolidate tips from any number of traditional and nontraditional sources.
Because the vague nature of "tip" does not trigger the same protection that even a "hunch" or "suspicion" might, the future of tips in the legal system may result in even more applicants of the "helpfulness" standard enunciated in Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. (2014) (holding that sufficient corroboration of tip’s accuracy is not required); but other statutes do require corroboration of reliability before it can be evaluated for its usefulness. This important distinction furthers the need for the development or evaluation of a standardized tools and procedures to effectively investigate anonymous tips in a manner that is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The four corners requirement for warrants requires the complaint to reflect a certain level of understanding of the crime alleged, the type of evidence sought, and how such evidence would be found. Anonymous tips currently require an analysis that is less than probable cause yet requires a fourth amendment review. The vagueness of the standard, which is based on other standards that are more well defined, is ripe for danger and the development of strict guidelines and tools.
Force Multiplier- Is this a force Multiplier? There is a tipping point at which too many anonymous tips becomes a force multiplier. An overload of information can lead to a failure to timely act on or properly analyze tips due to the sheer volume. Bad information can lead to a breakdown of the enforcement and investigatory system.
Both technological opportunities, such as Trucker Path and advancement in the science and development of tools or methods for evaluating the veracity of tips may contibute to a more effective use of tips in the future.
No Responses