Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
Tip Calls
The court in Commonwealth v. Korenkiewicz, 743 A.2d 958, 963-65 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc) stated:
A police officer, however, need not
personally observe the illegal or suspicious conduct, which forms the
basis for the reasonable suspicion, but may rely, under certain
circumstances, on information provided by third parties.
...
Pennsylvania law also permits a vehicle
stop based upon a radio bulletin if evidence is offered at the
suppression hearing to establish reasonable suspicion. The mere fact
that the police receive their information over the police radio does
not, of itself, establish or negate the existence of reasonable
suspicion.
Commonwealth v. Fromal, 392 Pa.Super. 100, 572 A.2d 711, 717 (1990), held that one officer may also act upon information received from another officer, albeit in the context of an arrest rather than an investigative detention:
An arresting officer is not required to
have sufficient information to establish probable cause for the arrest
so long as the officer ordering the arrest possessed sufficient
information giving rise to probable cause. Further, an arresting
officer in executing a valid arrest may rely on radio broadcasts
emanating from police authorities in one of the following instances: 1)
when he is ordered or directed to perform the arrest by an officer in
possession of facts justifying the arrest, 2) when he receives
information over the radio justifying the arrest, or 3) when a
combination of facts heard over the radio and acquired otherwise
provides requisite probable cause.
Police officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant had been involved in an outdoor fight behind a bar and, thus, was justified in making an investigatory stop, even though tip of fight was anonymous and thus subject to particular skepticism; tip was substantially corroborated when officer arrived and saw a large group of men gathered behind bar, group was assembled after 2:00 a.m. on land between railroad tracks and river and was consistent with a developing fight, two men fled from scene as officer approached, and, based in part on defendant's appearance, officer was certain that defendant was one of the fleeing men. Commonwealth v. Leonard, 951 A.2d 393 (Pa.Super.,2008).
In deciding whether reasonable suspicion exists for an investigatory stop, analysis is the same under both Article I, sec. 8 and the Fourth Amendment. Commonwealth v. McClease, 750 A.2d 320, 324 (Pa.Super.2000). See also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 548 Pa. 484, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (1997) (stating that "Pennsylvania has always followed Terry in [investigatory detention] cases.").
The fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether "the facts available to the officer at the moment of the [intrusion] 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate." This assessment, like that applicable to the determination of probable cause, requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, with a lesser showing needed to demonstrate reasonable suspicion in terms of both quantity or content and reliability. Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 561 Pa. 545, 751 A.2d 1153, 1156 (2000) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868). [excerpted from Commonwealth v. Leonard].
Among the factors to be considered in forming a basis for reasonable suspicion are tips, the reliability of the informants, time, location, and suspicious activity, including flight. Commonwealth v. Freeman, 563 Pa. 82, 757 A.2d 903, 908 (2000) (noting that "nervous, evasive behavior such as flight is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion"); Zhahir, 751 A.2d at 1157 (stating that the expectation of criminal activity in a given area and nervous or evasive behavior are factors); Commonwealth v. Albert, [767 A.2d 549 (Pa.Super.2001)] (pointing to the reliability of an informant's tip as well as time and place as factors in determining reasonable suspicion); Commonwealth v. Pizarro, 723 A.2d 675, 680 (Pa.Super.1998) (finding that flight and presence in heavy drug-trafficking areas are factors). [excerpted from Commonwealth v. Leonard].
While a tip can be a factor, an anonymous tip alone is insufficient as a basis for reasonable suspicion. Wimbush, 750 A.2d at 811; Jackson, 698 A.2d at 572. Such anonymous tips must be treated with particular suspicion. Jackson, 698 A.2d at 573. Likewise, presence in a high crime area alone or flight alone does not form the basis for reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Cook, 558 Pa. 50, 735 A.2d 673, 677 (Pa.1999). However, a combination of these factors may be sufficient. See Zhahir, 751 A.2d at 1157 (noting that suspicious conduct corroborates an anonymous tip); Cook, 735 A.2d at 677 (stating that circumstances which alone would be insufficient may combine to show reasonable suspicion); [ ]; Pizarro, 723 A.2d at 680 (finding that flight along with presence in heavy drug-trafficking area may demonstrate reasonable suspicion).... Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (innocent facts, when taken together, may warrant further investigation); Commonwealth v. Riley, 715 A.2d 1131, 1135 (Pa.Super.1998) ("a combination of circumstances, none of which alone would justify a stop, may be sufficient to achieve a reasonable suspicion"). [excerpted from Commonwealth v. Leonard].