 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McChesney v. State10/20/1999
driver. Likewise, the glances of the passengers are not sufficient to provide a reasonable suspicion. The district court did not find these glances particularly significant, nor do we. See State v. Kupihea, 581 P.2d 765, 766 (Haw. 1978) (two passengers in vehicle looked back in direction of police and crouched down, not grounds for stop); Thomas v. State, 297 So.2d 850, 852 (Fla.App. 1974); Parker v. State, 363 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla.App. 1978); Rodriguez v. State, 578 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). Under these circumstances, we hold that the officer=s observations did not provide a reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
Finally, our decision to require independent police corroboration of an anonymous REDDI report appears to be consistent with the practice of law enforcement in this state, which will not make a stop unless police observation confirms either the reported or some other illegal or suspicious activity. On this point, the district court made the following observations in rendering its decision:
[APPELLANT=S COUNSEL:] The next consideration that the courts need to make is given that the basis for this investigation was an anonymous tip or anonymous information, is that an adequate basis for the officer to make the inquiry?
THE COURT: Apparently the highway patrol doesn=t think so, because all of their information on REDDI stops is that nobody has to identify themselves and that the police will establish probable cause based upon their own observations not relying on the REDDI test, is what the highway patrol and other law enforcement officers advertise about the REDDI stops. (Emphasis supplied.)
The district court=s observation is confirmed by Officer Will=s testimony that he intended to verify the anonymous tip by Afollow the vehicle to see if any violations did, in fact, occur.@
CONCLUSION
As Wyoming law enforcement has recognized, anonymous REDDI tips, such as this one, by themselves, are not sufficiently reliable to warrant an investigatory stop. Without independent observation of suspicious or illegal activity, Officer Will did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop McChesney. The seizure of McChesney was illegal. This illegal seizure Abar from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion.@ Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d at 225 (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). The decision of the district court to deny suppression is reversed. Upon remand, McChesney Ashall be allowed to withdraw@ his plea of guilty. W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2).
THOMAS, Justice, Dissenting, with which KALOKATHIS, District Judge, joins.
I would affirm McChesney=s conviction in this case. Is it merely an accident of alliteration that the word ALife@ precedes the word ALiberty@ in the Declaration of Independence, or did the signatories of that historic document intend to prioritize life over liberty interests? The correct answer is that the order was intentional, and the lives of our Wyoming citizens surely weigh more on the scales of Justice than the relative inconvenience of an investigatory stop of a motorist.
An appropriate refutation of the majority opinion in this case is set forth in a decision of the Court of Appeals of Oregon, where that court said:
The officer may corroborate the tip either by observing the illegal activity or by finding the person, the vehicle and the location substantially as described by the informant. State v. Bybee, 131 Or.App. 492, 884 P.2d 906, 908 (1994) (emphasis added).
In this case, the Gillette police officer quite clearly found the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|