332 P.3d 1034
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Around 2:45 a.m. police responded to a civil-standby call at Saggers’ address; the caller (Thompkins) was upset and referenced guns/domestic-violence but did not state a firearm was present.
- At 3:13 a.m. an unknown 911 caller identifying himself as “Abraham Anderson” reported witnessing a man hit a woman, retrieve a shotgun from the house, and threaten the woman; caller used a pay phone and left before officers arrived.
- Officers arrived within minutes, saw a Suburban in the driveway, found no victims, no visible weapons, lights off, and after a sweep contacted Saggers and his roommate Eddie indoors.
- Saggers was handcuffed briefly, placed in a patrol car, questioned, told officers he owned a shotgun locked in his bedroom case, and later consented to officers retrieving the shotgun after officers learned he was ineligible to possess firearms.
- Saggers was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm; he moved to suppress his statement and the recovered gun. Trial court denied suppression; Saggers convicted on stipulated facts and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Saggers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain/question Saggers under Terry based on the 911 tip | The 911 caller gave a contemporaneous eyewitness account of violence and a threatened use of a firearm via 911, which (like Navarette) supplies sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigatory stop | The 911 tipster was unknown, called from an untraceable pay phone and disappeared; officers rapidly obtained information negating the alleged exigency, so reasonable suspicion dissipated before questioning | Court held initial response to 911 was understandable, but reasonable suspicion based on exigency dissipated before officers questioned Saggers; detention/interrogation at that point was not justified |
| Whether Saggers’ admission and his consent to retrieve the shotgun were within the scope of a lawful Terry stop | Admission and consent occurred while detention was valid and thus evidence admissible | Admission and consent occurred after exigent circumstances dissipated and beyond the scope of any valid stop, so statements and recovered gun should be excluded | Court held the admission and subsequent consent were beyond the scope of a valid stop and reversed the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (911 caller’s contemporaneous eyewitness report can supply sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigatory stop under the totality of the circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may conduct brief investigative stops based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for custodial interrogation warnings)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip alleging a weapon without corroboration does not justify a stop)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (limited corroboration of an informant’s predictive details can support reasonable suspicion)