MALACAT vs.

CA

FACTS:

Petitioner was arrested for having in his possession a hand grenade after he was
searched by a group of policemen when he was said to be acting suspiciously when he
was hanging around Plaza Miranda with his eyes moving fast together with other
Muslim-looking men. When the policemen approached the group of men, they
scattered in all directions which prompted the police to give chase and petitioner was
then apprehended and a search was made on his person.

He was then convicted under PD 1866 in the lower court. Hence, the present petition
wherein petitioner contended that the lower court erred in holding that the search
made on him and the seizure of the hand grenade from him was an appropriate
incident to his arrest and that it erred in admitting the hand grenade as evidence since
it was admissible because it was a product of an unreasonable and illegal search.

Issue: WON the search and seizure conducted by the police was valid.

RULING: Trial court confused the concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search

incidental to a lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of
the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their
allowable scope.

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity
of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in a large majority of
these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a
search. 36 In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made — the process cannot be reversed. 37 At bottom, assuming a
valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area
within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize
any money or property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the
fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the
arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence.

while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds
that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason
must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally,
a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may,
under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person
for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause;
and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not
armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer.

FLORIDA v. J. L. No. 98-1993 (2000)

FACTS:

After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male
standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers
went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, respondent J. L., was
wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of
the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual
movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who
was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm
without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court
granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The
intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that
decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment.

ISSUE:

Whether an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is, without more, sufficient to
justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person.

RULING:

We hold that it is not. An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without
more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the
protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in
the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer
reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and
that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Here, the officers'
suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but
solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked
sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It
provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test
the informant's knowledge or credibility. The contentions of Florida and the United
States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible
attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The
reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of
illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also
declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to
license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a
stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.
The facts of this case do not require the Court to speculate about the circumstances
under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great-- e.g., a report
of a person carrying a bomb--as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability.