and information about where Mr. Jackson could be found fail to indicate that Ms. Thompson-Wright had a special familiarity with his affairs, but they do not even indicate that Ms. Thompson-Wright’s source or sources had a special familiarity with Mr. Jackson’s affairs. It is hardly uncommon for a person’s family members and friends to have photographs of the person and to know where he or she stays, while knowing little of — or at least lacking “special familiarity” with — the person’s criminal activities. If there is any correlation between possession of a person’s photograph or knowledge of the person’s address and special knowledge of the person’s criminal activities, it is likely a weak one, insufficient to create reasonable suspicion. See White, 496 U.S. at 332, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (<HOLDING>); see also Navarette v. California, — U.S. -,
holding that an anonymous informants ability to predict respondents future behavior  namely the route that respondent would take to deliver a package of cocaine  demonstrated inside information a special familiarity with respondents affairs and thus rendered the informants tip sufficiently reliable  although it was a close case 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 corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability holding an informants tip can establish reasonable suspicion without investigative confirmation if the tip is credible holding tip to be sufficiently reliable where the officer confirmed an informants description of the suspects appearance and location though the officer did not personally witness any criminal behavior