Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)

Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.

An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.

Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.

Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.

The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[Madmok]

The Supreme Court took the case, and overturned the suppression stating that since the police were able to corroborate the reliability of the tip (by the tipster knowing the movements made by the suspect and the nesr future destinations shed be stopping at) BEFORE detaining the suspect, this gave reasonable suspicion to detain the suspect