Ramirez

In Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 331 [ 110 L.Ed.2d 301, 309-310 , 110 S.Ct. 2412 ], the Supreme Court set forth general standards for reviewing investigative detentions made by the police based on the totality of the circumstances, including information provided by an anonymous tip. Such a tip can support a lawful detention where the information provided is “sufficiently corroborated to furnish [the requisite] reasonable suspicion.” (Ibid.) In this case we apply this standard to analyze the amount of corroboration required to make the tip sufficiently reliable to permit a reasonably trained police officer to act upon it in conducting an investigative detention.

Salvador Hernandez Ramirez appeals a judgment convicting him of possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1 § 1538.5). He contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him, and all evidence seized after the unlawful detention must be suppressed as the direct product of the detention. As we shall explain, we conclude the…

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion this nonconsensual police detention was based on an anonymous tip sufficiently corroborated to pass constitutional muster. Even the most liberal reading of the record cannot justify this detention. Fourth Amendment privacy protections are not preserved merely by citing the legal standards by which to evaluate police conduct while ignoring the quality of the observed facts purporting to justify a detention. I point to the following shortcomings of the majority opinion.

The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including brief detentions short of arrest. (Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 50 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 361 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 ].) Thus, the majority’s reliance on this intrusion being brief and minimal is irrelevant, as is the fact Ramirez consented to the search after the illegal detention occurred.

The so-called corroborative facts on which the majority relies are mischaracterized and, in any event, the officers did not purport to have relied on any *1621 of them. The first of the four it lists, “every physical detail given by the informant” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1619) was corroborated by the officer’s…

In Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 331 [ 110 L.Ed.2d 301, 309-310 , 110 S.Ct. 2412 ], the Supreme Court set forth general standards for reviewing investigative detentions made by the police based on the totality of the circumstances, including information provided by an anonymous tip. Such a tip can support a lawful detention where the information provided is "sufficiently corroborated to furnish [the requisite] reasonable suspicion." ( Ibid. ) In this case we apply this standard to analyze the amount of corroboration required to make the tip sufficiently reliable to permit a reasonably trained police officer to act upon it in conducting an investigative detention.

Salvador Hernandez Ramirez appeals a judgment convicting him of possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, [1] § 1538.5). He contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him, and all evidence seized after the unlawful detention must be suppressed as the direct product of the detention. As we shall explain, we…