2.

Questions of Law on Review

i.  Does an anonymous and uncorroborated tip regarding a possibly intoxicated highway driver afford a police officer reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a temporary detention to investigate further? 

3.

Analysis

i)

An Anonymous Tip Reporting a Suspected Drunk Driver that Articulates an Immediate Risk of Harm, Reasonably Consistent With Current Activity and Provides “Predictive Information” are Objectively Reasonable and Therefore Constitutional Traffic Stop, Search and Seizure.   

      Under the United States and California Constitutions its case law progeny, an officer may stop and detain a motorist on reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the law.

 The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.”  People v. Wells (2009) 36 Cal.4^th  at 1082-1083, citing to the Terry “stop and frisk, reasonable suspicion” standard pursuant to Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 19.

The “totality of circumstances” are reviewed to make this determination of objective reasonableness. Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than probable cause, and can arise from less reliable information than required for probable cause, including an anonymous tip.

 People v.  Wells (2009) 36 Cal.4^th  at 1083. In order to be reasonable, the officer's suspicion must be supported by some specific, articulable facts that are “reasonably ‘consistent with criminal activity.’ The officer's subjective suspicion must be objectively reasonable, and “an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith.” Where a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists, “the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances ‘in the proper exercise of the officer's duties.’ Id. at p. 1083.

      In the case at bar, Officer Irigoyen could reasonably believe that the blue van described in the dispatched tip was the same car he eventually stopped, as it matched the description, and was traveling in the same direction and at the same time and location as described. But, in the brief period while observing the van before stopping it, the officer saw nothing to indicate the driver was intoxicated. Thus, an anonymous citizen's tip of a possibly intoxicated highway driver “weaving all over the roadway” sufficient raises a reasonable suspicion that would justify an investigatory stop and detention under these circumstances.  Id. at p. 1083.   

      In fact, California precedent indicates that a citizen's tip may itself create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a temporary vehicle stop or detention, especially if the circumstances are deemed exigent by reason of possible reckless driving or similar threats to public safety.  (See Lowry v. Gutierrez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 926, [phoned-in tip of erratic driving]; People v. Rios (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 616, [car illegally parked and traffic hazard]; People v. Superior Court ( Meyer ) (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 579.  Federal Supreme Court cases indicate that some anonymous tip detentions may not be reasonable, but those do not contain any “predictive information.” People v. Wells (2009) 36 Cal.4^th  at 1084. Federal cases allowing the search stress the accuracy of the tipster's description and location of the vehicle, the relatively greater urgency presented by drunken or erratic highway drivers, and the minimal intrusion involved in a simple vehicle stop. Id. at 1085.   

      As the Wells Court reasoned in siding with allowing anonymous tips with “predictive information” followed by a traffic stop and detainment to be reasonable in the case at bar was the report of a possibly intoxicated highway driver, “weaving all over the roadway,” poses a far more grave and immediate risk to the public than a report of mere passive gun possession. Police officers undoubtedly would be severely criticized for failing to stop and investigate a reported drunk driver if an accident subsequently occurred. Where a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists, “the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances....” Id. at 1087.   The Wells Court further reasoned that: a) the U.S. Supreme  Court has upheld police roadblocks stopping all drivers to investigate possible drunk driving, despite a complete lack of articulable facts indicating an immediate risk of harm; b) doubts regarding the tipster's reliability and sincerity are significantly reduced in the setting of a phoned-in report regarding a contemporaneous event of reckless driving presumably viewed by the caller; c) the level of intrusion of personal privacy and inconvenience involved in a brief vehicle stop is considerably less than the “embarrassing police search” on a public street condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court; and d) the relatively precise and accurate description given by the tipster in the present case regarding the vehicle type, color, location, and direction of travel, all confirmed by the investigating officer within minutes of receiving the report, enhanced the reliability of the tip.  Id. at 1087-1088. 

      In the case at bar, the Wells Court held that the totality of circumstances showed a reasonable suspicion to uphold the detainment and search from the officer's traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity: a) the tipster's information regarding the van and its location was sufficiently precise, and its report of a motorist “weaving all over the roadway” demanded an immediate stop to protect both the driver and other motorists; and the tip reported contemporaneous activity and its “innocent” details were fully corroborated within minutes of the report. Id. at 1088. 

4.

Case Disposition 

      Affirmed.

5.

Application of Rule of Law 

      A peace officer may stop a vehicle, detain its driver and conduct a reasonable search of the vehicle, where based upon an advanced anonymous tip, if there is an immediate risk of harm, observing conduct that is reasonably consistent with current activity and provides “predictive information.” Such traffic stops, detentions and searches are objectively reasonable and Constitutional.   

6.

Implications 

      Anoymous tips of drunk drivers will likely be upheld if the prefatory factors of the immediate risk of harm, the driving is reasonably consistent with the information provide in the tip, and provides “predictive information” that allows the officer to weigh the decision of whether to make a traffic stop of a suspected drunk driver.