## Facts

- An anonymous 911 caller reported that roughly 25 men were loitering in a bar parking lot and acting belligerently, and that three or four of them had “guns out.”
- The caller refused to identify herself, leaving police without information to assess her credibility or hold her accountable for a false report.
- Police officers responded to the bar parking lot shortly after the call.
- When the officers arrived, they found a much smaller group than reported.
- The officers did not observe anyone acting belligerently or displaying a firearm.
- Even though their on-scene observations did not match the report, officers detained individuals in the lot and conducted pat-down searches.
- Officers paid particular attention to Andre Williams.
- During the frisk and subsequent search, officers found a handgun and illegal drugs on Williams.
- Williams was arrested and charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- Williams moved to suppress the handgun as the product of an unconstitutional stop and frisk; the district court denied the motion.
- Williams later entered a guilty plea while preserving his right to appeal the denial of suppression.
- The district court applied sentencing enhancements that increased Williams’s advisory Guidelines range.
- Williams appealed, challenging the denial of suppression and, alternatively, the sentencing enhancements.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Andre Williams based on an anonymous 911 report of men with guns and what officers observed upon arriving at the scene.
2. If the conviction stood, whether the district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of the suppression motion, vacated the judgment of conviction, and remanded.
- The court held that officers lacked reasonable, individualized suspicion that Williams was armed and dangerous, so the frisk violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Because the conviction was vacated on the suppression ruling, the court did not address the sentencing-enhancement arguments.

## Legal Principles

- A *Terry* frisk is lawful only when an officer can point to specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the person frisked is armed and dangerous.
- An anonymous tip alleging a gun, without sufficient indicia of reliability, generally cannot by itself supply reasonable suspicion; police must corroborate meaningful details suggesting criminal activity and linking the suspect to it.
- A discrepancy between an anonymous report and officers’ immediate observations can weaken the tip’s value in the reasonable-suspicion analysis.
- Being present in a place where police receive a report of weapons is not enough; the Fourth Amendment requires individualized suspicion directed at the specific person searched.
- When evidence is obtained as a direct result of an unlawful frisk, it must be suppressed as the product of an unconstitutional search.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that an anonymous 911 report describing a large, belligerent group with several guns did not justify frisking Andre Williams where officers arrived to find a smaller, calm group and observed no guns or threatening conduct; lacking individualized reasonable suspicion that Williams was armed and dangerous, the pat-down was unconstitutional, the handgun and drugs were suppressed, and Williams’s conviction was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.


United States v. Williams, 731 F.3d 678 (2013)