Kenneth Hong—Model lesson plan

Lesson:Tips of Crimes

Source: Original

Time:50 min.

  1. GOALS
  2. Understand the general rules pertaining to tips of crimes, and what is required for a tip to be considered reliable under the law for an issuance of a warrant.
  3. Understand the distinction between the probable cause formula, and the alternative probable cause formula that can exist when tips of crimes are involved.
  4. Understand the unique circumstances of anonymous tips, and the level of detail required of them.
  1. OBJECTIVES
  2. Knowledge objectives
  3. Tips provide useful information in the criminal law context.
  4. Tips, while useful, are not sufficient on their own and require factual corroboration.
  5. Recognize that law regarding of tips of crimes can utilize an alternate probable cause formula.
  6. Skills objectives
  7. Know what is required if an individual chooses to make a tip of a crime.
  8. Understand that if a tip is provided anonymously, what is additionally required.
  9. Be more attentive to details of occurrences in everyday life.
  10. Attitude objectives
  11. Probable cause is an important standard guiding interaction between law enforcement and citizenry.
  12. Having detailed evidence, corroboration, and more information generally are important in legal, education, and life contexts.
  1. CLASSROOM METHODS
  2. Before starting lecture:
  3. Review reasonable articulable suspicion.
  4. Entry Task: What amendment does the concept of reasonable articulable suspicion draw from, and what two questions should be asked when a Terry stop is involved?
  5. Introductory lecture:
  6. Describe the general rules of tips of crimes:
  7. Probable Cause Formula: Veracity (reliability in general) + Basis of Knowledge + Sufficient Facts
  8. Note that the sufficient facts element that a crime occurred is satisfied if the tipper says for example, “they’re dealing drugs” as long as veracity, and basis of knowledge elements also exist.
  9. Alternate Probable Cause Formula: Tip + Corroboration
  10. Note that Supreme Court has in the past struggled with addressing veracity in the tips of crimes context.
  11. Current Law: Veracity and basis of knowledge is assessed under a totality of circumstances
  12. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)[now overturned]: Required both veracity and basis of knowledge
  13. An affidavit based on an informant’s tip, standing alone, cannot provide probable cause for issuance of a warrant.
  14. If the tip fails under the veracity or basis of knowledge prong, probable cause for issuance of a warrant not established.
  15. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)[overturned Spinelli]
  16. Facts: anonymous letter told police that Gates sold drugs, which described how sale operations involved flying and driving to Florida to pick them up – though the letter got a few facts wrong.
  17. Police monitored Gates’ trip to Florida, and his actions went mostly as the letter suggested. Police then obtained a warrant and made an arrest, discovering drugs.
  18. Lower court found that police had not established probable cause adequately under Spinelli. In it’s view Spinelli required police affidavit for warrant to show:
  19. Basis of Knowledge – that particular means by which the tipper came by the information given in his report to the police.
  20. Either the veracity of the informant or the “reliability of the informant’s report in this particular case.”
  21. Application: Lower court found that there was no basis for concluding the anonymous tipper was credible or what the basis for knowledge was.
  22. HOLDING: Court rejects rigid Spinelli two-part test. Notes that probable cause standard is a “practical, nontechnical conception” that is designed to be a “fluid concept” turning on the assessment of probabilities in a particular context.
  23. Veracity or reliability, and basis of knowledge are relevant considerations in the totality of the circumstances analysis, which should not be restricted by two factors alone.
  24. Court chooses to liberalize the test – seems to suggest that a significant level of veracity can make up for a low basis for knowledge, and vice versa.
  25. Ex: If a particular informant known for unusual reliability of predictions of certain types of criminal activities in a locality, the informant’s failure in a particular case to thoroughly set forth the basis of knowledge should not serve as an absolute bar to a finding of probable cause based on his tip.
  26. Ex: If an unquestionably honest citizen comes forward witha report of criminal activity, which if fabricated would subject him to criminal liability, rigorous scrutiny of the basis of knowledge element is unnecessary.
  27. Corroboration:
  28. Corroborative efforts of police officials often times come into play, the situations surrounding which can factor into the common-sense judgment called for in making a probable cause determination.
  29. Draperv. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)– Facts involved informant providing a detailed description of Draper and predicted that he would be wearing a light colored coat, brown slacks, black shoes, and walking fast.
  30. Case involved prediction of transporting heroine deal, but informant gave no indication of his basis for knowledge whatsoever.
  31. HOLDING: Because officer verified every other bit of informant’s information, the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the remaining bit, was likewise true.
  32. Reflects the limitations of a rigid two-part test, and the value of a totality of the circumstances analysis when tips of crimes are involved.
  33. Generally, so long as corroborative efforts indicate, even without 100% certainty that an informant’s other assertions are also true, this can be enough in making a probable cause determination.
  34. Courts also place emphasis on corroboration involving detailed predictions on future actions of third parties that are ordinarily not easily predicted.
  35. Anonymous Tips
  36. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) – Facts involved a call that provided no predictive information and left police with no means whatsoever to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility.
  37. Court rejects a “firearm exception” to anonymous tip reliability, so an anonymous tip is not sufficient to frisk for a gun (though bombs are different).
  38. Such tips must do more than merely accurately identify a particular individual.
  39. In the anonymous tip setting, a corroboration must support a reasonable suspicion of illegality.
  40. Veracity
  41. Can be shown through:
  42. A statement against interest.
  43. Reliability in the past (this is the classic).
  44. Activity: Opinion Poll
  45. After the lecture, debrief the core themes of the lecture, and distinguish the holdings from the Supreme Court case decisions.
  46. Let the class know that it will participate in an opinion poll exercise. Provide the handout to students, and tell them that they should carefully read and consider each fact scenario, decide on how they feel about it, then circle that opinion on the sheet.
  47. After the students are done filling out their opinion poll, ask them to stand up and move under the sign that matches their opinion for the first question. Make sure that the signs are posted around the room prior to the start of class (Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, Strongly Disagree).
  48. Teacher should facilitate discussion and encourage constructive debate among the students as the class moves through each fact scenario. Reiterate classroom expectations, and encourage the students to defend the choice they have made, and to consider disagreeing viewpoints from students that have conflicting opinions.
  1. EVALUATION
  2. Exit Task: What are the requirements for informants and tips of crimes, sufficient to meet probable cause for an issuance of a warrant?
  3. Student participation in the opinion poll.
  4. Whether the students adhered to classroom expectations, and respected differing opinions and viewpoints in the exercise.
  5. Class comprehension of lesson topics pertaining to tips of crimes.

Tips of crimes opinion poll exercise

Does the tip of the crime meet a probable cause standard for issuance of a warrant? Indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Agree, Can’t Decide, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree with the court’s decision.

  1. Officer Martinez arrived at the Seattle Police Department, when she received a phone call from someone she did not know. The caller alleged that James Bond, a nearby resident dealt cocaine and had a firearm. When Officer Martinez asked for the caller’s information, he refused to provide any details of his identity whatsoever, and the caller ID showed that the call was made from a payphone. When the officer asked the caller how he knew about the alleged drug dealing, he replied, “Don’t worry about it, I just know.” Officer Martinez procured a warrant, drove towards Bond’s neighborhood, and saw him walking his dog down the street. Officer Martinez proceeded to search and frisk Bond, whereshe found cocaine and an unregistered firearm, after which shearrested him. The tip from the caller, which turned out to be accurate, provided Officer Martinez with enough probable cause for issuance of the warrant.

Strongly AgreeAgree UndecidedDisagreeStrongly Disagree

  1. Officer Smith received a call from an informant to alert the police about a nearby heroine deal that was to take place that afternoon. The informant said that Gordon Davis, a college dropout would arrive at the alleyway behind Healz Drugstore wearing a red hat, a blue leather jacket, Nike Dunk sneakers, and would be smoking Camel Crush cigarettes. The informant provided no basis for his knowledge whatsoever. Smith obtained a warrant based on the tip, parked his car near the expected meeting point, and eventually saw a man wearing all the articles of clothing identified by the informant. The man, however, was not smoking a cigarette. Officer Smith searched and frisked Davis and found 100 grams of heroine in his pockets, whereby he then arrested Davis. The tip from the caller provided Officer Smith with enough probable cause for issuance of the warrant.

Strongly AgreeAgree UndecidedDisagreeStrongly Disagree

  1. Officer Berkemer received an anonymous letter that described incriminating information about Robert Hines, who was purportedly running a sophisticated drug scheme in between Seattle, WA and Juneau, AK. The letter described with detail how Berkemer and his cronies would transport large quantities of marijuana from Seattle to Juneau via car and ferry. Berkemer monitored Hines’ trip from Seattle to Juneau on an occasion, andthe actions went substantially as the letter suggested. Berkemer proceeded to obtain a warrant, and made an arrest on the next monitored transport involving Hines, discovering large quantities of marijuanaprepared for distribution. The anonymous tipper gave no basis for where or how he obtainedhis knowledge. The anonymous tip from the letter provided Office Berkemer with enough probable cause for issuance of the warrant.

Strongly AgreeAgree UndecidedDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Guide to Outcomes in Opinion Poll:

Scenario Number One:

This situation poses a similar fact pattern to that in Florida v. J.L, and a court would likely find that the police officer did not have sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, which resulted in the arrest. Though the informant made a phone call, no predictive information was given, and the officer was left with no means whatsoever to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility. As recognized in J.L., there is no “firearm exception” to anonymous tip reliability, and this is insufficientto frisk or search for a gun. Anonymous tips must do more than merely identify a particular individual, even if it ends up being accurate. Within the anonymous tip setting, a corroboration must support a reasonable suspicion of illegality.

Scenario Number Two:

This scenario poses a situation similar to that in Draper. By providing a detailed description of various articles of clothing that the suspect was predicted to wear, the police officer was able to corroborate the information from the tip. Though the informant gave no indication of the basis for his knowledge, because the officer was able to verify every other bit of the informant’s information except for the relatively minor fact that he wasn’t smoking a cigarette at the time, the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the remaining bit (i.e. drug dealing activity) was likewise true.

Scenario Number Three:

This situation poses a similar fact pattern to that in Gates. Although the letter was sent from an anonymous tipper, who provided no information as far as the basis for having knowledge, by considering all the factors under a totality test a court would likely feel compelled to find a showing of probable cause sufficient for an issuance of a warrant. Because the police officer corroborated the information set forth in the letter, this could certainly factor into the common-sense judgment in meeting the probable cause threshold.