## Facts

- Around 1:00 a.m., Irvington, New Jersey police officers patrolling a high-crime area were flagged down by a young man who reported he had just seen a man with a gun.
- The informant refused to give his name but provided a detailed description: dark-skinned man with a beard wearing a blue sweat top, blue pants, and a gold chain, accompanied by a younger man.
- Officers immediately proceeded 50–100 feet and saw three men in a well-lit parking lot near a restaurant; one matched the description and was with a younger companion.
- As officers approached and ordered the men to stop, the younger man complied; the described man (Valentine) did not submit and instead reacted evasively and aggressively.
- When instructed to place his hands on the patrol car, Valentine said “Who, me?,” pushed past an officer’s arms, and attempted to flee.
- Officers physically restrained Valentine; during the struggle, a handgun fell to the ground and was recovered.
- Valentine was charged federally as a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop based on a face-to-face but unnamed tip describing an armed suspect, corroborated shortly thereafter by observation and surrounding circumstances.
2. Whether conduct occurring after an officer’s order to stop but before physical restraint or submission may be considered in assessing reasonable suspicion and the legality of the seizure under California v. Hodari D.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the suppression order and remanded.
- The court held officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Valentine based on the totality of the circumstances, distinguishing a face-to-face report from an anonymous telephone tip.
- The court held the district court misapplied Hodari D. by treating the command to stop as the moment of seizure; because Valentine did not submit, his intervening conduct was relevant to the analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop is determined under the totality of the circumstances, including the informant’s basis of knowledge, reliability, specificity of description, immediacy of corroboration, and contextual factors such as time and location.
- A face-to-face informant report may be treated as more reliable than a purely anonymous tip because officers can assess the informant’s demeanor and infer proximity to the reported events, even if the informant refuses to identify himself.
- Under California v. Hodari D., a seizure does not occur upon a mere show of authority; absent submission, seizure occurs only with physical force, and pre-seizure flight or resistance may be considered in evaluating reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that an in-person, contemporaneous report with a detailed description, promptly corroborated in a high-crime setting, supplied reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, and that because Valentine was not seized until physically restrained, his actions between the command to stop and the restraint could be considered in the Fourth Amendment analysis.


United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2000)