Question:
Can a stop be based on tips, even where an officer observes no violations and no evidence of impairment?
Answer:
Yes. Most jurisdictions will permit the stop without independent corroboration, so long as the tip is from an ordinary citizen who is identified, and the tip provides some specificity as to vehicle description and illegal activity.
Occasionally, a police dispatcher will receive a call from a private citizen reporting a suspected impaired driver. A police officer may make an investigatory stop of an automobile based upon information from a police dispatcher that a concerned citizen had reported that the automobile was being driven erratically. When reasonable suspicion is based on a citizen informant s report, that report must contain some indicia of reliability. The reliability of the informant s tip will be reviewed by the court on a case-by-case basis.
Case Example
Ms. Sunderland testified that on the date of the incident, she was driving home from a church meeting in Millington, traveling north on Highway 51 through Tipton County, when a car went past me, ran my tires off the road. Ms. Sunderland stated that the driving of the man in the car that passed her was just erratic. It was just back and forth, weaving. He almost ran off the road himself a couple of times. Ms. Sunderland explained that when she tried to pass this driver on the left, he swerved into her lane and almost hit her again. Because she believed the driver of this vehicle to be a danger to himself and others on the road, Ms. Sunderland called 911 from her cell phone to report the incident. The 911 dispatcher forwarded the information to the police. A police officer called Ms. Sunderland back on her cell phone and instructed her to continue to follow the vehicle and a police officer would intercept them where Kimbrough Road crossed Highway 51 near Crosstown. In accordance with the prearranged instructions, Ms. Sunderland flashed her headlights off and on as she approached Kimbrough Road and a police officer pulled out between her and the Defendant s vehicle. The police representative on the phone instructed Ms. Sunderland to follow the police cruiser into the parking lot of a convenience store, which she did. She observed the driver pull into the parking lot of the convenience store, the police car follow, and the driver exit the vehicle and quickly enter the store. Ms. Sunderland admitted she could not identify the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle that night nor could she describe the vehicle, but she stated, I followed the car, I never left sight of the car. So whoever got out of that car, that s the person that [the police] were after. Ms. Sunderland further stated that while she could not remember the specifics of the car at the hearing, she probably described it to the officer at the time. Lieutenant Mike Durham of the Atoka Police Department testified that while he never spoke directly with Ms. Sunderland that night, he received a call from dispatch and agreed that he would intercept a vehicle suspected of erratic driving at the intersection of Highway 51 and Kimbrough Road. He was told that he would know it was the suspect vehicle because it was being followed by a citizen who would flash her headlights. Officer Durham found the vehicle in question and followed it for approximately a quarter mile before it made a quick right turn into a convenience store parking lot. During the short time he followed the vehicle, Officer Durham observed that the driver of the vehicle jerked the steering wheel over to off [sic] the white line, the fog line two times. According to Officer Durham, there was not a lot of traffic at the time. Officer Durham followed the Defendant into the parking lot, where the Defendant parked by the front door. Officer Durham first activated his blue lights after the Defendant had parked but before the Defendant exited his vehicle. Officer Durham explained that the Defendant exited his vehicle and real quick went toward the door and went in the store. Officer Durham followed the Defendant into the store, asked him to step outside, and once outside, the two talked for a few minutes. Officer Durham stated that when he first made contact with the Defendant in the store, he noticed a strong intoxicating odor about the Defendant and that the Defendant s speech was slurred. Once outside the store, Officer Durham observed the Defendant more closely and determined that the Defendant was more intoxicated than [he] thought he was in the store. The Defendant stood as if he was trying to brace himself and staggered when he walked. Officer Durham asked the Defendant to perform three separate field sobriety tests, but the Defendant declined to perform all three. The Defendant was then informed of his rights pursuant to the implied consent law but refused to sign the implied consent form. When asked if he had been drinking, the Defendant replied in the affirmative.
Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of the investigatory stop and seizure. The appellate court noted that defendant was seized as he sat in his parked vehicle in the lot of the convenience store when the officer activated his blue lights, and the primary issue was whether or not this warrantless seizure was constitutionally unreasonable. However, the police did have reasonable suspicion under the circumstances to initiate an investigatory stop based upon reliable testimony from a citizen-informant and other objective factors. The citizen-informant gained her information through first-hand observation and her motivation for communicating with the authorities was based in the interest of society or personal safety. She provided reliable, specific, and articulate facts from which the police officer could form a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence. The arresting officers own observations of defendant s erratic driving further bolstered the specific and articulable facts upon which the officer could base a reasonable suspicion sufficient to conduct an investigatory stop.
The above is an excerpt from Officer s DUI Handbook, by John Stephen, John Kwasnoski, and Gerald Partridge, published by Lexis-Nexis.
John A. Stephen is a former Assistant Attorney General with the New Hampshire Department of Justice where he served as the Director of the DWI Unit and was responsible for the statewide supervision of DWI related cases, a former Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Safety, overseeing the Divisions of State Police, Motor Vehicles, Safety Services and Fire Standards, and Training and the former Coordinator of Homeland Security for the state of New Hampshire. He is currently the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Stephen has for many years lectured local and state police, on various legal and homeland security-related issues, including search and seizure and constitutional law. Mr. Stephen is an Adjunct Instructor at the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Police Academy, where he has taught in the areas of criminal procedure, search and seizure, DWI apprehension and detection, accident reconstruction, and drug recognition.