High Court Considers Key ‘Anonymous 911′ Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on a case involving anonymous 911 callers reporting crimes, and their decision this summer will have many implications for witnesses, criminals and public safety communications centers. Anonymous callers frequently report suspicious circumstances to dispatchers, but do not want to identify themselves for various reasons. These callers often provide detailed information when questioned, leading to significant arrests, even when the officers themselves see nothing criminal when they arrive. The case involves two northern California brothers stopped in 2008 by CHP officers on the basis of a radio BOLO, and arrested for possessing marijuana for sale. The radio broadcast was generated by a 911 call to the Mendocino County sheriff’s comm center from a person who did not identify him/herself. The Supreme Court is considering the specific question: Do law enforcement officers need to corroborate anonymously-provided information before detaining the persons identified in an anonymous tip or phone call?

After their arrest, the Navarette brothers pleaded guilty, but appealed their case, claiming the CHP officers didn’t personally observe the erratic driving behavior reported by the 911 caller. Their attorney pointed to a previous case in which the Supreme Court disallowed anonymous information, saying it lacked reliability.

A California court denied their appeal, and the brothers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As with other high court cases, several outside other parties have submitted briefs on both sides of the issue. California’s attorney general and 31 other states support the appellate court decision, and two criminal defense groups support overturning the Navarette decision.

If the Supreme Court disallows anonymous information as the basis for police detention, calltakers might be spurred to convince callers to provide their identifying information in more cases. It would also require procedural changes when dispatching units to an incident based on an anonymous caller—dispatchers would have to alert officers that the caller was anonymous, and that they must generate their own reasonable suspicious or probable cause to make any traffic stop or detention.

Lastly, it would also put the burden on officers and deputies to more closely surveil people who are the subject of an anonymously-made call before making a detention, or simply take no action.

The Supreme Court could rule on the case in June.

Read more about the legal implications of the future decision here, and a list of the court filings. Download (pdf) the Supreme Court filing here. [The court has not yet posted either the transcripts or audio files for today’s oral argument session.]