People v. Horowitz, 21 N.Y.2d 53 (1967)

An anonymous tip, even if it accurately describes a suspect and their location, is insufficient on its own to establish probable cause for a search and seizure without independent indicia of the informant’s reliability or independent verification of the tip’s substance beyond easily observable details.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether an anonymous tip provided sufficient probable cause for police to search and arrest the defendant, Horowitz. The police received an anonymous call detailing Horowitz’s location, physical description, and the fact that he possessed stolen bonds in a brown paper bag. Upon finding a man matching the description, the police searched him and found the bonds. The court held that the anonymous tip, even when corroborated by the defendant’s appearance and location, lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to establish probable cause. The case was remitted for a hearing to determine if the police had additional evidence to support probable cause beyond the tip itself. The court emphasized the need for evidence demonstrating the informer’s reliability, not just the accuracy of the description.

Facts

A police lieutenant received an anonymous phone call stating that a man named Bernie Horowitz, described as tall, heavy, bald, and carrying a brown paper bag with stolen U.S. savings bonds and pornographic material, would be at the New York Times Building mailroom. The lieutenant relayed this information to an arresting officer. The officer found Horowitz at the mailroom, matching the anonymous description and carrying a brown paper bag. The officer identified himself, asked Horowitz his name, and obtained the bag, which contained stolen bonds. Horowitz was then arrested.

Procedural History

Horowitz was arrested and charged with possession of stolen property. He moved to suppress the bonds as evidence, arguing they were obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion, and Horowitz pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, with two justices dissenting. Horowitz appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an anonymous tip, corroborated only by the suspect’s physical appearance and location matching the description, provides sufficient probable cause for a search and seizure.

Holding

No, because the accuracy of the description alone does not establish the reliability of the informant or the truthfulness of the information regarding the stolen bonds.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while the police verified the details of the anonymous tip regarding Horowitz’s appearance and location, this did not establish the reliability of the informant or the veracity of the claim that Horowitz possessed stolen bonds. The court distinguished this case from cases where the informant’s reliability was established through prior accurate tips or through independent police investigation corroborating the substance of the tip. The court emphasized that “[a]ll that this amounts to is that the anonymous informer described the defendant correctly and had the right man as the sequel proved when he was found to have the stolen bonds in his possession. That is not the kind of evidence necessary to prove the reliability of the informer.” The court cited People v. Coffey and other cases emphasizing the need for evidence of the informant’s past reliability. The court also distinguished this case from People v. Montague, where police officers had independent knowledge of facts constituting probable cause. The court, referencing People v. Malinsky, remitted the case for a hearing to determine if the police possessed any evidence, beyond the anonymous tip, to establish probable cause. The court acknowledged its previous adherence to People v. Defore, favoring admissibility of evidence even if illegally obtained, but recognized the current commitment to the exclusionary rule established in Mapp v. Ohio. The controlling principle is that the arresting officer does not need to know the reliability of the informer if acting on the direction of another officer with sufficient information to constitute probable cause.