Skip to main content

Traffic stops based on tips

Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette v. California

Updated Oct 18, 2026

In brief

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the stop was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Where it stands
Decided

Decided 5-4 · April 22, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Thomas

What it’s about
The Navarette brothers challenged a traffic stop after police received an anonymous 911 report that a truck had run another vehicle off the road.
Who it affects
The stop of the brothers’ truck complied with the Fourth Amendment because the officer had enough reason to suspect the driver was intoxicated.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette v. California
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court ruled the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because the circumstances gave the officer enough reason to suspect the truck’s driver was intoxicated, and agreed with the lower court (affirmed).

The dispute asked whether police had to independently confirm an anonymous 911 report of drunken or reckless driving before stopping the reported vehicle.

Question presented

Does the Fourth Amendment require an officer who received information regarding drunken or reckless driving to independently corroborate the behavior before stopping the vehicle?

What the Court decided

Holding

The traffic stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated. Affirmed.

Result
Affirmed

The Court's reasoning

The Court said that, considering all the circumstances, the officer had enough reason to suspect the truck’s driver was intoxicated. That made the stop lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

The vote

  • Joined the judgment
  • Dissented
  • Wrote an opinion
Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
  1. Breyer
  2. Thomaswrote the opinion
  3. Kennedy
  4. Roberts
  5. Alito
Dissenting · 4disagreed with the result
  1. Kagan
  2. Scaliawrote the dissent
  3. Ginsburg
  4. Sotomayor
5 justices joined the judgment, 4 dissented.

From the opinions

““So long as the caller identifies where the car is, anonymous claims of a single instance of possibly careless or reckless driving, called in to 911, will support a traffic stop.””

— Justice Scalia(dissent)

What's next

The Supreme Court has finished this case, and the lower court’s ruling remains in place.

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Oct 17, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Opinion added: Navarette

    Apr 22, 2014 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Oct 18, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis