 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Mequon v. Peacock12/11/2002
top. Id. at . However, the court determined that before an informant's tip would give rise to grounds for an investigative stop, the police had to consider its reliability. Id. at . In assessing the reliability of a tip, the court concluded that due weight had to be given to two important considerations: the informant's veracity and the informant's basis of knowledge. Id. The court determined that the two considerations must be viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances, instead of as discrete elements of a more rigid test: " deficiency in one [consideration] may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability." Id. The court then explained that although there is no per se rule of reliability, these considerations outline a general spectrum of potential types of tips, which under specific circumstances can give rise to a reasonable suspicion. Id.
. Our supreme court then examined cases that have helped create the boundaries for the spectrum of reliable anonymous tips, including J.L. The court found significant differences between the anonymous tip in J.L. and the anonymous cell-phone tip that led to the traffic stop in Rutzinski. First, the informant exposed himself or herself to being identified and, therefore, to possible arrest if the tip proved false, by providing information that he or she was in the car immediately in front of Rutzinski. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22 at . Second, the informant provided verifiable information and contemporaneous observations indicating his or her basis of knowledge. Id. at . Third, the tip suggested that Rutzinski was an imminent threat to the public's safety. Id. at . The court determined that these distinctions were enough for it to hold that the informant's tip contained sufficient indicia of reliability to support a finding of reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop of Rutzinski. Id. at .
. In Williams, our supreme court addressed the question of whether an anonymous tip containing a contemporaneous report of drug trafficking, combined with independent observations and corroboration of details from the tip, justified an investigatory stop. Williams, 2001 WI 22 at . In Williams, the police department received a 911 call from an anonymous caller who gave her address and stated that there was drug activity going on in the back alley of her residence. Id. at . When the police arrived at the scene, they found a vehicle that matched the general description provided by the caller and observed Williams engaging in suspicious activity. Id. at -8. The court determined that the anonymous tip contained a number of components indicating its reliability, which distinguished the case from J.L. Williams, 2001 WI 22 at , 31. The distinguishing facts included: (1) the anonymous tipster described the criminal activity as she observed it; (2) the anonymous tipster put her identity at risk by placing a 911 call and identifying her location as her home; (3) the police had an audio recording of the anonymous tip; (4) the police independently observed facts giving them reason to suspect criminal activity was afoot; and (5) the police were able to corroborate the innocent, although significant, details of the tip, which lent the tip credibility. Id. at , 34, 37, 39, 40. The court then considered the totality of the circumstances and concluded that the cumulative details of the tip and the officers' independent corroboration provided reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Id. at .
. We now apply the teachings of J.L., Rutzinski and Williams to the anonymous tip in this case. The tip was that a possible intoxicated driver ha
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|