42 N.E.3d 1123
Mass.2016Background
- At ~2:00 A.M., an anonymous 911 caller reported a black Mercedes "swerving all over the road" on Memorial Drive in Cambridge and gave its registration, make, and color. The call was recorded and relayed by dispatch to State Police.
- Trooper Dwyer, dispatched to the vehicle owner’s Belmont address, arrived about five minutes later; he observed a car matching the description pull into the driveway and followed it.
- Dwyer activated lights, the driver (Depiero) nearly fell exiting the car, smelled of alcohol, admitted two drinks, failed field sobriety tests, and registered .18 on a breath test.
- Depiero was charged with OUI (second offense) and a license restriction violation; he moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless stop.
- Trial judge denied suppression (finding reasonable suspicion). The Appeals Court affirmed based on the 911 tip being an ‘‘excited’’/reliable statement. The SJC granted further review, considered Navarette, and affirmed denial of suppression on different grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Depiero's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anonymous 911 tip provided sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigatory stop under art. 14 | The 911 call was an eyewitness report with detailed, particular information (location, reg. no., make/model) and thus satisfied basis-of-knowledge and veracity for reasonable suspicion; independent corroboration by police supported reliability | The tip was anonymous and not inherently reliable; Navarette should not control under art. 14, so the tip alone did not supply reasonable suspicion | The SJC declined to treat 911 calls as per se reliable; but found the 911 tip + police corroboration (location, vehicle matched, knowledge defendant's probation for similar offense) together supplied sufficient indicia of reliability for reasonable suspicion, so suppression denied |
| Whether Massachusetts should adopt Navarette’s rule that the 911 system itself is an indicium of veracity | Urged adoption: technological/regulatory changes make 911 calls more traceable and discourage false reports, so Navarette’s rule should apply | Opposed adoption: caller’s subjective belief in identifiability controls; mere use of 911 does not prove the tipster believed they were identifiable; art. 14 affords greater protection than the Fourth Amendment | Court declined to adopt Navarette’s automatic reliability presumption for anonymous 911 calls under art. 14, but considered independent corroboration sufficient here |
| Whether corroboration known to police before the stop can cure anonymity-related veracity defects | Corroboration (Dwyer’s timely arrival, map/time analysis, observing matching car at target address, and info defendant was on probation for DUI) made the tip reliable enough | Corroboration insufficient because officer did not personally observe erratic driving; stop required firsthand suspicious driving observed by officer | Held corroboration known before the stop was adequate to cross the lower veracity threshold for reasonable suspicion; stop was reasonable despite officer not personally witnessing the erratic driving |
| Standard to assess informant reliability under art. 14 (Aguilar-Spinelli application) | For reasonable suspicion, a relaxed showing on basis-of-knowledge and veracity prongs is permitted; independent corroboration can substitute | Argues strict requirements or exclusion of 911 reliability absent officer observation | Court applied Aguilar-Spinelli framework, permitted less rigorous showing for reasonable suspicion, and relied on corroboration to satisfy veracity |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (Supreme Court held a 911 tip may be highly probative of reliability but opinion divided)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 461 Mass. 616 (2012) (art. 14 reasonable-suspicion review; corroboration must be known to police before stop)
- Commonwealth v. Depina, 456 Mass. 238 (2009) (eyewitness report satisfies basis-of-knowledge prong)
- Commonwealth v. Lopes, 455 Mass. 147 (2009) (radio broadcast stops require indicia of reliability and vehicle particularity)
- Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 456 Mass. 385 (2010) (particularity of vehicle description supports stop)
- Commonwealth v. Costa, 448 Mass. 510 (2007) (independent corroboration can compensate for deficiencies in informant reliability)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability insufficient for stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigatory stop requires reasonable suspicion)