that only minimum, if any, corroboration was required in order to allow Officer Schock to find reasonable suspicion. However, under our prior precedent, the “tip” must be treated as anonymous and cannot form even a partial basis for finding reasonable suspicion in the instant case. In United States v. Thomas, we held that a tip from the FBI was not sufficiently rehable to serve as even a partial basis for reasonable suspicion when the information was “devoid of specifics” relating to criminal conduct and was “entirely conjectural and conclusory.” Thomas, 211 F.3d at 1189-90. In United States v. Morales, we articulated the test succinctly: if a dispatch does not contain information about the tip’s source, “the tip should be treated as anonymous.” 252 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The majority’s attempt to distinguish the tip
recognizing anonymous tips referring to activity that is occurring at the time the tip is made that provide only innocent details of identification are less reliable and require some corroboration to provide the foundation for reasonable suspicion holding stop invalid where anonymous tip provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informants knowledge and credibility holding that tip provided to an officer by another police department via an attempt to locate dispatch that did not include information about the tips source is treated as anonymous holding that an anonymous tip must have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a stop and frisk holding that an anonymous tip supported a terry stop where the informant provided several details but refused to give his name