In Florida v. J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000), an anonymous caller reported that a young Black male standing at a bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Sometime thereafter, officers arrived at the bus stop and observed three Black males "'just hanging out there.'" (Id. at p. 268.) One of the three, J.L., was wearing a plaid shirt. The officers did not see a firearm and J.L. made no threatening or otherwise unusual movements. One of the officers approached J.L., frisked him, and discovered a gun. (Ibid.) The police received the anonymous unrecorded telephone call reporting that "a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun." ( J.L., supra, 529 U.S. at p. 268.) Based on the anonymous tip alone, one of the officers searched J.L. and found a gun in his pocket. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held that this search was invalid because the anonymous tip did not contain the indicia of reliability required to provide the officer with reasonable suspicion that J.L. was carrying a gun. ( Id. at pp. 272-274.) The Court noted the unknown informant "neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J.L." ( Id. at p. 271.) The officers frisked and seized the defendant after receiving an anonymous tip that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. J.L., 529 U.S. at 268, 146 L. Ed. 2d at 258-59. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress and held that the anonymous tip did not create the reasonable, articulable suspicion required to justify an investigatory stop. Id. at 271, 146 L. Ed. 2d at 260. An anonymous caller stated that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. The court noted that the officers' suspicion that J.L. was carrying a weapon arose not from any observations of their own but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. ( Florida v. J.L., supra, 529 U.S. at p. 270.) That situation was contrasted with the predictive information and police corroboration found sufficient, though a "close case," in Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. at page 332. The police received one anonymous telephone call reporting that a suspect matching the defendant's description, and at his location at a bus stop, had a gun. The court found that anonymous tip, under those particular circumstances, not to be sufficiently reliable so as to be the sole basis for a detention and patsearch. The court noted, however, that "there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits 'sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop.' " ( Florida v. J.L., supra, 529 U.S. 266, 270 120 S. Ct. 1375, 1378.) The tip in that case was found lacking as it "provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility." ( Id. at p. 271 120 S. Ct. at p. 1379.) Even the inclusion in the tip of a physical description of the suspect was found lacking for this purpose, as "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." (Ibid.) The court declined to find a "firearm" exception to the standard Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. 1, analysis. The court also concluded that the facts of the case before them did not require them to speculate about "the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability." ( Florida v. J.L., supra, 529 U.S. at p. 273 120 S. Ct. at p. 1380.) Thus, for example, it was reasoned that the indicia of reliability demanded for a report of a bomb might be less than that for a report of a person carrying a firearm. The Supreme Court held that a stop conducted on the basis of an anonymous report that a black man at a bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, had a gun, lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to establish reasonable suspicion. This information, according to the court, constituted "the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had information about the defendant." While the Supreme Court acknowledged that an anonymous report which included sufficient "indicia of reliability" could serve as the basis for a stop, the Supreme Court gave weight to the fact that the report in J.L., and as is the case here, did not show that the caller had knowledge of concealed criminal activity." (Id. at 272.) Furthermore, the anonymous report in J.L., furnished no "predictive information" concerning the suspect's movements. In reaching its determination, the Supreme Court rejected the State's argument that reasonable suspicion existed because the description of the suspect's visible attributes reported by the caller proved accurate. (J.L. at 271.) The Court concluded that an anonymous tip "lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in White and essential to the Court's decision in that case." (529 U.S. at p. 271) There, police received an anonymous tip that "a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun." (Id. at p. 268.) Sometime thereafter, two officers were dispatched to the bus stop where they observed "three black males 'just hanging out there,'" one of whom, the defendant, was wearing a plaid shirt. (Id. at p. 268.) "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, and the defendant made no threatening or otherwise unusual movements." (Ibid.) One of the officers approached the defendant, told him to put his hands up on the bus stop, frisked him, and seized a gun from his pocket. (Ibid.) The court rejected Florida's contention that "the tip was reliable because its description of the suspect's visible attributes proved accurate . . . ." (Florida v. J.L., supra, 529 U.S. at p. 271.) While "an accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and appearance is . . . reliable in the sense that it will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse," it "does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. 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." (Id. at p. 272.) In concluding the anonymous tip lacked sufficient corroboration, the court stated: "All the police had to go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about the defendant. If White was a close case on the reliability of anonymous tips, this one surely falls on the other side of the line." (Id. at p. 271.) The Supreme Court concluded the tip provided no predictive information that would provide police with the means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. Id. at , 120 S. Ct. at 1379. The informant did not explain how he knew about the gun and did not supply any basis for believing he had inside information about the suspect. Id. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the tip contained an accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and appearance, it did not show that the tipster had knowledge of concealed criminal activity. Id. at , 120 S. Ct. at 1379. The Court also noted that although the allegation about the gun turned out to be correct, this does not suggest that the officers, prior to the frisks, had a reasonable basis for suspecting J.L. of engaging in unlawful conduct. Id. at , 120 S. Ct. at 1379. The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search. Id. The United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a stop and frisk based on an anonymous tip that a person was carrying a gun. An anonymous caller reported to the police that a young black male wearing a plaid shirt and standing at a particular bus stop was carrying a gun. Id. at 268. The police responded to the bus stop and saw three black males, including respondent J.L., who was wearing a plaid shirt. Id. J.L. did not make any threatening or unusual movements and the police did not see a firearm. Id. An officer told J.L. to put his hands on the bus stop, frisked J.L., and seized a gun from his pocket. Id. The Supreme Court held that the gun was unconstitutionally seized because the anonymous tip was not sufficiently corroborated to provide reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk. Id. at 271. The Supreme Court noted that the anonymous call did not provide any predictive information and therefore left the police without a means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. Id. Rather, "all the police had to go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun or supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J.L." Id. The Court stated that the ability of the police to corroborate details provided by the anonymous caller regarding J.L.'s description was insufficient. Id. at 272. Reasonable suspicion "requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person." Id. The high court concluded the information received by the police was insufficient to justify the stop and frisk. According to the court, "the tip in the instant case lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in Alabama and essential to the Court's decision in that case. The anonymous call concerning J.L. provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility." (Id. at p. 271 146 L.Ed.2d at p. 260.) The court rejected the state's argument that reliability could be based on the informant's description of the physical characteristics of the defendant, i.e., a Black male wearing a plaid shirt at a bus stop. The court explained: "An accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and appearance is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. 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." (Florida, supra, 529 U.S. at p. 272.) The court concluded that the anonymous tip lacked the indicia of reliability necessary to justify a stop, noting that the tip must be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just its tendency to identify a determinate person. Id. at 272. In Florida v. J.L., the police received an anonymous tip which provided a physical description of an individual including the color of his shirt. The tip provided a location and maintained that the individual was carrying a gun. The officers arrived at the location, and observed three individuals, one of whom matched the description in the tip. The officers approached the defendant and frisked him. The Court found that the anonymous tip lacked any indicia of reliability and was insufficient to justify a stop and frisk (see Florida v. J.L., 529 US at 275). The tip only corroborated the identity of the individual. There was no corroboration of any criminal activity (see Florida v. J.L., 529 US at 272). The Court held that an anonymous telephone tip reporting that a man wearing a plaid shirt and standing at a bus stop had a gun was insufficient to justify a Terry stop. J.L., 529 U.S. at 268, 146 L. Ed. 2d at 258-59, 120 S. Ct. at 1377. The Supreme Court stressed that: "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." J.L., 529 U.S. at 272, 146 L. Ed. 2d at 261, 120 S. Ct. at 1379.