When an informant reports an incident at or near the time of its occurrence, a court can often assume that the report is first-hand, and hence reliable. In State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464, 616 P.2d 1374, 1375 (1980), for example, the court viewed as important the fact that the informant immediately reported his first-hand observations of the crime. Cf. State v. Joao, 55 Haw. 601, 525 P.2d 580, 583 (1974) (absence of an "adequate anchor, as to time and place" suggests unreliable basis of knowledge).

" Id. The circumstances here do not approximate the fact situations in State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497, 479 P.2d 800 (1971); State v. Kea, 61 Haw. 566, 606 P.2d 1329 (1980); and State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464, 616 P.2d 1374 (1980). Although anonymous telephone tips served as grounds for the investigative stops there, the information from the unknown informants "carried enough indicia of reliability to justify the . . . forcible stop," Adams v. Williams, supra, 407 U.S. at 147, or other factors tending to corroborate the defendant's involvement in criminal activity were present.

Id. This court has also addressed the propriety of anonymous tips in several other cases, including State v. Temple, 65 Haw. 261, 650 P.2d 1358 (1982) (anonymous tip was insufficient to justify stop of vehicle); State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464, 616 P.2d 1374 (1980) (anonymous tip was sufficient to justify stop of defendant's vehicle); and State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497, 479 P.2d 800 (1971) (anonymous tip predicting future activity, with police confirmation of that activity, was sufficient to justify stop of defendant's vehicle). C. Other Jurisdictions Are Split on the Question Whether an Anonymous Tip in a Reckless Driving Case Is Sufficient to Justify an Investigative Stop.

See, e.g., United States v. DeBerry, 76 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Clipper, 973 F.2d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1992); United States v. McClinnhan, 660 F.2d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Speight v. United States, 671 A.2d 442 (D.C. 1996); United States v. Johnson, 540 A.2d 1090 (D.C. 1988); United States v. Mason, 450 A.2d 464 (D.C. 1982); State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820 (Fla. 1981); Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1980); State v. Kuahuia, 616 P.2d 1374 (Haw. 1980); People v. Smithers, 415 N.E.2d 327 (Ill. 1980); Graham v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 697 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983); State v. Jernigan, 377 So.2d 1222 (La. 1979); State v. Hasenbank, 425 A.2d 1330 (Me. 1981); Johnson v. State, 439 A.2d 607 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982); Commonwealth v. Stoute, 665 N.E.2d 93 (Mass. 1996); Commonwealth v. McCauley, 419 N.E.2d 1072 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981); State in re H.B., 381 A.2d 759 (N.J. 1977); State v. Williams, 598 A.2d 1258 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1991); People v. McLaurin, 374 N.E.2d 614 (N Y 1978); State v. Pulley, 863 S.W.2d 29 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Franklin, 704 P.2d 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). Apparently, the only case that supports the majority's decision is Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068 (Pa. 1997).

See United States v. McClinnhan, 660 F.2d 500, 502-03 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (recognizing that officers have an "unappealing choice," whereby they could either stop the defendant on the basis of the tip that he was carrying a sawed-off shotgun in a black briefcase or could follow him through the streets of Washington hoping that he would commit a crime or brandish the weapon out of doors before the shotgun was put to its intended use); State v. Kuahuia, 616 P.2d 1374, 1375 (Haw. 1980) (describing the police as "duty-bound" to make a temporary investigative stop of a person anonymously identified as carrying a rifle); People v. Smithers, 415 N.E.2d 327, 332 (Ill. 1980) (evaluating officers' actions in light of their failure to act — had they not conducted the stop and frisk for weapons, someone could have been killed or seriously injured). A complaint regarding a person with a concealed weapon in a public place is cause for investigation.

State v. Brighter, 63 Haw. 95, 621 P.2d 374 (1980). See also, State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464 (1980); State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 (1978). Conclusions of Law nos. 13 and 18 are identical.

1999). In State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464, 616 P.2d 1374 (1980), an anonymous informant reported that "a local male in a white Datsun or Toyota sedan bearing license plate number FT-4398 had just been seen in the Liliha Square Shopping center with a rifle in the back of the car." Kuahuia at 464, 616 P.2d at 1374.

State v. Brighter, 63 Haw. 95, 621 P.2d 374 (1980). See also, State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464 (1980); State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 (1978). Conclusions of Law nos. 13 and 18 are identical.

Other courts have also recognized the need for an immediate investigatory stop when an anonymous informant of undetermined reliability states that he or she observed a suspect carrying or displaying a gun in a public place. See State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464, 616 P.2d 1374 (1980) (where unidentified informant's tip was specific as to time and place, police officers immediately drove to place in question and their observations there tended to verify information received, and firearms were allegedly involved, police were justified in making temporary investigative stop of defendant's automobile); see also State v. Hasenback, 425 A.2d 1330 (Me. 1981) (telephone informant saw man on street with gun in his left rear pocket); State v. Bolden, 380 So.2d 40 (La.) (unidentified citizen informant walked up to officer and stated that man in nearby nightclub had sawed-off shotgun in his pants), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856 (1980); State ex rel. H.B., 381 A.2d 759 (N.J. 1977) (anonymous tip describing man in restaurant with gun in his possession). We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the officer's pat down search of Scott for a firearm was warranted for the officer's protection and the protection of the public.

863 S.W.2d at 34.        See Henighan v. United States, 433 A.2d 1059, 1064 (D.C.1981); State v. Kuahuia, 62 Haw. 464, 465-66, 616 P.2d 1374 (1980); Peoplev. Smithers, 83 Ill.2d 430, 437-38, 47 Ill.Dec. 322, 415 N.E.2d 327 (1980).