United States v. Jack Manuel Alvarez, Jr.

899 F.2d 833 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack Manuel ALVAREZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-5304. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 4, 1989. Decided March 20, 1990. Thomas J. Umber, Asst. U.S. Atty., Santa Ana, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Marshall M. Schulman, Santa Ana, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SNEED, REINHARDT and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellee, Jack Manuel Alvarez, was indicted in a three-count indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine ( 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a)(1)), possession of an unregistered firearm ( 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861 (d)), and possession of a firearm with the serial number removed ( 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861 (h)). Appellant contends that the district court erred in suppressing evidence seized after a stop of Alvarez' automobile. Background 2 On May 12, 1988, at approximately 10:28 am, an unidentified male caller telephoned the Santa Ana Police Department with information of a possible bank robbery that was to take place that morning. The caller refused to…

Appellee, Jack Manuel Alvarez, was indicted in a three-count indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine ( 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1)), possession of an unregistered firearm ( 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d)), and possession of a firearm with the serial number removed ( 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (h)). Appellant contends that the district court erred in suppressing evidence seized after a stop of Alvarez’ automobile.

Background

On May 12, 1988, at approximately 10:28 am, an unidentified male caller telephoned the Santa Ana Police Department with information of a possible bank robbery that was to take place that morning. The caller refused to identify himself but claimed that the robbery was going to happen “in about 10 minutes at the Bank of America on Eighth and Main. The man is driving a white Mustang GT and he’s got explosives with him.” The caller described the man in the car as “tall, dark, looks kinda Mexican and he’s probably in the back of the bank.” When asked how he knew what was going to happen, the caller stated, “I know it’s going to happen. Just believe me, he’s there.”

Based on this information, several patrol cars were dispatched to the bank. Officers…

dissenting:

I dissent. This is a particularly intriguing case because an anonymous tip that was false — and patently manufactured out of whole cloth in at least one crucial respect — resulted in the seizure of evidence that led to the defendant’s conviction for an entirely unrelated offense. Because the tip was false, the police could not obtain corroboration of any of its details, other than of wholly neutral facts that failed to suggest the existence of any criminal activity, planned or otherwise. 1 Yet, the majority holds that the police had founded suspicion sufficient to justify a number of police officers’ drawing their weapons, stopping an individual at gunpoint, immobilizing him, and then frisking and questioning him. By finding that the wholly innocuous facts observed by the police provided sufficient corroboration for an anonymous tip, and justified the use of force that ensued, the majority lowers even further the constitutional barriers that separate a free society from a police state.

The district court framed the central question in this case as “whether the police can lawfully stop a vehicle or person with their guns drawn, acting solely on the basis of an…