331 Conn. 239
Conn.2019Background
- Police received an anonymous 911 call reporting “a young man that has a handgun” near 472–476 Winthrop Ave; caller said he could see the gun but could not identify which individual because several young men in dark clothing were moving back and forth.
- Multiple patrol cars arrived within minutes in a high‑crime area; officers saw about six men near a black Infiniti who began to walk away as officers approached.
- Officers ordered the group to stop; five complied but Quentine Davis continued walking, reached toward his waist, and dropped an object into a nearby garbage can when ordered again.
- Officers arrested Davis and recovered a 9 mm handgun from the garbage can; Davis was charged with firearm offenses and moved to suppress the gun, arguing the Terry stop was unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court denied suppression relying on Navarette factors (firsthand, contemporaneous 911 tip, excited utterance, corroboration of location), and Davis entered a conditional nolo contendere plea and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anonymous 911 tip gave police reasonable suspicion to effect a Terry stop | Tip was reliable under Navarette (firsthand, contemporaneous, 911 call, startling event) and corroboration of location justified stop | Tip was too generic (identified only a group of young men in dark clothing), so it did not particularize Davis as the suspect | The tip could support suspicion that a young man in the area had a gun, but not particularized suspicion that Davis possessed it; stop violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether corroborating observations (group near Infiniti, dispersal, officers’ prior knowledge of two men) cured tip vagueness | Corroboration and high‑crime location made the tip reliable and supported an investigatory stop | Corroboration only identified a group, not the specific gun‑holder; dispersal and recognition of two others did not particularize Davis | Corroboration did not supply the necessary particularity to single out Davis; detention unlawful |
| Whether the dangerousness of firearms creates an exception permitting less particularized tips to justify stops | Public safety and risk from guns justify robust police response | No automatic ‘‘dangerous conduct’’ exception; Fourth Amendment still requires particularized suspicion | Court rejected a firearms exception; particularized suspicion remains required |
| Remedy for unlawful stop (impact on seized evidence) | Evidence was independently probative due to Davis’s conduct (dropping object) | Evidence was fruit of the unlawful seizure and must be suppressed | Court agreed with Davis that the gun was tainted by the illegal stop and suppressed it |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (set out four reliability factors for anonymous 911 tips and applied them to justify a stop for suspected drunk driving)
- Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip that a person at a bus stop carried a gun was too barebones to justify a stop)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (anonymous tip corroborated by police observations can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may briefly detain for investigation with reasonable and articulable suspicion)
- State v. Hammond, 257 Conn. 610 (2001) (Connecticut discussion of anonymous tip reliability and need for particularized suspicion)
- State v. Benton, 304 Conn. 838 (2012) (reciting the standard requiring particularized, objective suspicion for Terry stops)