5th Circuit Upholds Suppressed Search
Okanlawan Norbert was charged in a one-count indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He moved to suppress the evidence of the gun and statements he made to officers before and after discovery of the gun. He argued the police lacked any legal basis for the stop that resulted in the discovery of the evidence.
Investigator Felix McClinton received a phone call from an anonymous tipster that illegal drugs were being sold in the Millsaps Apartments’ parking lot. The called said she was in management at the complex and described the dealer as a “black male, dark skinned, slender build with gold teeth known as ‘N.O’” who drove a black Infiniti with a specific license plat. She said the drug dealing was a “personal safety issue” and put the residents in fear. McClinton didn’t get the caller’s name or telephone number. It was unclear whether she witnessed the drug dealing or was only told about it. McClinton said he thought the tipster was credible based on his “training and experience.”
He and a number of officers went to the complex and saw three or four individuals standing next to some cars. He saw one individual who matched the caller’s description, but he didn’t see any drug dealing going on. The officers told the individuals they were investigating reported drug activity in the area. None of the individuals lived at the complex. The officers did an “officer safety” pat down of the men. Nothing was found on Norbert’s person.
Norbert confirmed he owned the black Infiniti that was about 15 to 20 feet away. McClinton walked over to the Infiniti and, looking through the window, spotted a handgun on the floorboard in front of the driver’s seat. He opened the unlocked car door to secure the handgun (due to officer safety), but couldn’t remember if Norbert had given him permission to do that.
Another officer had given Norbert the pat down. Norbert had said, jokingly, “Man, I started to run, but then I realized there was some more of you all on the other side. So I just turned around and came back.” This officer testified he also saw the gun wedged between the driver’s seat and console, and that Norbert had given consent to the search. After the officers confirmed Norbert had a felony conviction, they arrested him.
The Fifth Circuit said the Supreme Court “has evinced a strong distrust of anonymous tips. In particular, it has stated an anonymous tip that provides verifiable information as to a person’s identity and location, without more, is insufficient to justify an investigative stop.” Here, the Government contended the anonymous tip was credible and the officers properly verified it. The Court concluded the tip was the “bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant” that was not provided as a reported emergency. It also concluded the tip of general drug dealing was not “reliable in its assertion of illegality.” The officers had also failed to verify the tip to justify the stop. The Court upheld the district court’s suppression of the evidence.