In People v. Jordan (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 544, an anonymous 911 call, which was recorded and transcribed, informed police that a light-skinned African-American male wearing a white shirt, black jacket, and tan pants, was in a specified park and was carrying a concealed handgun. (Id. at pp. 548-549.) Officers responded to the location and found Jordan, matching the description, sitting on a park bench with his hands in his lap. (Id. at p. 550.) One of the officers motioned for Jordan to come over and identified himself as a police officer. When Jordan got up, the officer told him to place his hands in the air, turn around, and walk backward to the officer. Jordan complied. (Ibid.) A subsequent frisk revealed a small-caliber handgun. (Id. at p. 551.) The Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District held the detention to be unlawful under Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266. (Jordan, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 547.) As the court explained, the mere fact that the tip accurately described a particular person at a particular location "does not adequately establish that the tip was reliable in its assertion of illegality." (Id. at p. 558.) "The officer did not see appellant engage in behavior that suggested criminal activity was afoot." (Id. at p. 559.) The tip did not contain "predictive information from which, if confirmed, the officers could have inferred that the informant also had knowledge of concealed criminal activity." (Ibid.) Nor did the tip contain an explanation from the informant as to how he knew about the gun or when he learned of its presence in Jordan's pocket. (Id. at pp. 559-560.) The only fact distinguishing the case from Florida was that the anonymous tip was recorded and transcribed. However, while the record of the call "detracts from any possibility that the tip was the result of police fabrication," it does not render the informant accountable for a false tip. (Id. at p. 562.) "As anonymity decreases and the informant's risk of accountability increases, the inference that the tip is reliable strengthens." (Ibid.) The court concluded that the fact that the tip was recorded was not sufficient to distinguish the case from Florida.