quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
This is starting to smell like something more than Swatting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The trouble with our Liberal friends...is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan, 1964
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon will just take a shit on the board, strut around knocking over all the pieces and act like it won.. and in some cases it will insult you at the same time." DevlDogs55, 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.rikrlandvs.com

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
This is starting to smell like something more than Swatting.

Completely agree.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
This is starting to smell like something more than Swatting.

Completely agree.

..and what might that be?

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:


Exactly what AK just said - dispatch knows this is bullshit and is sending SWAT anyway.
This isn't like sending two officers to do a welfare check.
They are sending a fully armed SWAT Team to kick in someone's door and potentially do bodily harm.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
So the Swat team came in on this most recent incident?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The trouble with our Liberal friends...is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan, 1964
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon will just take a shit on the board, strut around knocking over all the pieces and act like it won.. and in some cases it will insult you at the same time." DevlDogs55, 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.rikrlandvs.com

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
This is starting to smell like something more than Swatting.

Completely agree.

..and what might that be?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The trouble with our Liberal friends...is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan, 1964
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon will just take a shit on the board, strut around knocking over all the pieces and act like it won.. and in some cases it will insult you at the same time." DevlDogs55, 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.rikrlandvs.com

quote:

Last time I checked an anonymous phone call with no corroboration or further information does not equate to exigency to enter private property.

quote:

The Eleventh Circuit first noted that

Officers “may briefly detain a person as part of an investigatory stop if they have a reasonable articulable suspicion based on objective facts that the person has engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Blackman, 66 F.3d 1572, 1576 (11th Cir. 1995)[iii]

Regarding anonymous tips, the court stated

The Supreme Court has been clear that “an anonymous tip can demonstrate ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop.'” Navarette, 572 U.S. at 397 (quoting White, 496 U.S. at 327) (punctuation omitted).[iv]

Thus, the court set out to determine if the anonymous tip in Bruce’s case had a “sufficient indicia of reliability” such that it provided reasonable suspicion to believe Bruce was involved in criminal activity.

The Eleventh Circuit discussed Navarette v. California[v], in which the Supreme Court examined the reliability of an anonymous tip. In Navarette, an anonymous tipster called 911 and stated that a silver pick-up truck (make, model and tag also provided) had just run her off the road, and was driving recklessly, or possibly intoxicated. The Supreme Court held that the call was reliable enough to establish sufficient reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even though the officer did not see the truck drive erratically or commit any traffic violations. The court stated

That “call bore adequate indicia of reliability” because the caller (1) “claimed eyewitness knowledge” of the event, (2) provided a “contemporaneous report,” and (3) used the 911 emergency system. Id. at 398-400.[vi]

The court noted that, in Bruce’s case, all three of the factors above were also present. First, the anonymous caller stated that he was an eyewitness, in that he saw the man with a gun arguing with another man. The caller told the dispatcher what he was observing at the time he was speaking with her. The court stated that this eyewitness account shows that the caller has a “basis of knowledge” and that lends support to the credibility of the tip, even when the caller is anonymous.

Second, the caller gave the dispatcher information as he was witnessing the incident occurring. This is what was meant by a contemporaneous report. Reports made by eyewitnesses as the incidents are actively occurring are considered “especially reliable.”[vii]

Third, the caller called the 911 system to report the incident, which enhances the calls reliability. The court stated

[T]he fact that the tipster called 911 to report the incident proves to be another “indicator of veracity” under Navarette. Id. at 400. A 911 call can be traced if necessary, and can also be recorded (as it was here). See id. at 400-01. These tools diminish the chance that a lying tipster could hide behind the cloak of anonymity. And if that were not enough, a caller can be prosecuted for providing a false tip. See id. at 400; Fla. Stat. § 817.49. That does not necessarily mean that every 911 caller is telling the truth—we assume that some do not. But it does mean that a “reasonable officer could conclude that a false tipster would think twice” before calling 911. Navarette, 572 U.S. at 401. Law enforcement would be hamstrung if it could not ordinarily “rely on information conveyed by anonymous 911 callers.” United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331, 1339 (11th Cir. 2002).[viii]

Bruce argued that because the police did not see any conduct that corroborated the 911 call regarding the gun and the argument, that the anonymous tip fell short of reasonable suspicion. However, the court stated

Those three factors made the tip reliable on its own, without the police independently seeing any criminal activity. The same was true in Navarette, where the police never saw the reckless driving that the tipster alleged. See 572 U.S. at 403-04; see also United States v. McCants, 952 F.3d 416, 423 (3d Cir. 2020) (HN10[] “The absence of corroborative evidence, the Court held, did not negate the reasonable suspicion created by the 911 call.”[ix]

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:

quote:

Last time I checked an anonymous phone call with no corroboration or further information does not equate to exigency to enter private property.

Then you would be wrong..

quote:

The Eleventh Circuit first noted that

Officers “may briefly detain a person as part of an investigatory stop if they have a reasonable articulable suspicion based on objective facts that the person has engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Blackman, 66 F.3d 1572, 1576 (11th Cir. 1995)[iii]

Regarding anonymous tips, the court stated

The Supreme Court has been clear that “an anonymous tip can demonstrate ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop.'” Navarette, 572 U.S. at 397 (quoting White, 496 U.S. at 327) (punctuation omitted).[iv]

Thus, the court set out to determine if the anonymous tip in Bruce’s case had a “sufficient indicia of reliability” such that it provided reasonable suspicion to believe Bruce was involved in criminal activity.

The Eleventh Circuit discussed Navarette v. California[v], in which the Supreme Court examined the reliability of an anonymous tip. In Navarette, an anonymous tipster called 911 and stated that a silver pick-up truck (make, model and tag also provided) had just run her off the road, and was driving recklessly, or possibly intoxicated. The Supreme Court held that the call was reliable enough to establish sufficient reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even though the officer did not see the truck drive erratically or commit any traffic violations. The court stated

That “call bore adequate indicia of reliability” because the caller (1) “claimed eyewitness knowledge” of the event, (2) provided a “contemporaneous report,” and (3) used the 911 emergency system. Id. at 398-400.[vi]

The court noted that, in Bruce’s case, all three of the factors above were also present. First, the anonymous caller stated that he was an eyewitness, in that he saw the man with a gun arguing with another man. The caller told the dispatcher what he was observing at the time he was speaking with her. The court stated that this eyewitness account shows that the caller has a “basis of knowledge” and that lends support to the credibility of the tip, even when the caller is anonymous.

Second, the caller gave the dispatcher information as he was witnessing the incident occurring. This is what was meant by a contemporaneous report. Reports made by eyewitnesses as the incidents are actively occurring are considered “especially reliable.”[vii]

Third, the caller called the 911 system to report the incident, which enhances the calls reliability. The court stated

[T]he fact that the tipster called 911 to report the incident proves to be another “indicator of veracity” under Navarette. Id. at 400. A 911 call can be traced if necessary, and can also be recorded (as it was here). See id. at 400-01. These tools diminish the chance that a lying tipster could hide behind the cloak of anonymity. And if that were not enough, a caller can be prosecuted for providing a false tip. See id. at 400; Fla. Stat. § 817.49. That does not necessarily mean that every 911 caller is telling the truth—we assume that some do not. But it does mean that a “reasonable officer could conclude that a false tipster would think twice” before calling 911. Navarette, 572 U.S. at 401. Law enforcement would be hamstrung if it could not ordinarily “rely on information conveyed by anonymous 911 callers.” United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331, 1339 (11th Cir. 2002).[viii]

Bruce argued that because the police did not see any conduct that corroborated the 911 call regarding the gun and the argument, that the anonymous tip fell short of reasonable suspicion. However, the court stated

Those three factors made the tip reliable on its own, without the police independently seeing any criminal activity. The same was true in Navarette, where the police never saw the reckless driving that the tipster alleged. See 572 U.S. at 403-04; see also United States v. McCants, 952 F.3d 416, 423 (3d Cir. 2020) (HN10[] “The absence of corroborative evidence, the Court held, did not negate the reasonable suspicion created by the 911 call.”[ix]

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
This is starting to smell like something more than Swatting.

Completely agree.

..and what might that be?

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
It’s no surprise that’s he is irritating some people but I’d expect (hope?) that the local LE agencies would not let themselves be fooled again. It shouldn’t be that hard.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
It’s no surprise that’s he is irritating some people but I’d expect (hope?) that the local LE agencies would not let themselves be fooled again. It shouldn’t be that hard.

I don't think anyone is getting fooled.

quote:

As an aside, the beanie never bothered me, until you mentioned it, Para. Now it bugs the hell out me.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
This is starting to smell like something more than Swatting.

Completely agree.