 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Mequon v. Peacock12/11/2002
d just left the East Towne Veterinary Clinic and was traveling northbound on Port Washington Road. The tipster then provided a description of the vehicle and a direction the car was traveling. The tipster did not state why he or she believed the driver was driving while intoxicated. Thus, like the tip in J.L., this tip did not contain any verifiable information indicating how the tipster came to know of the illegal activity. The tip contained nothing more than readily observable information. Additionally, like the officers in J.L., Restivo did not independently observe any activity that would raise a reasonable suspicion that crime was afoot. Restivo did not observe Peacock driving erratically or otherwise showing any signs of driving drunk and could not corroborate the allegations in the tip.
. Further, unlike Rutzinski and Williams, the record contains no information that the tipster risked putting his or her identity at stake. We do not know whether the tipster was calling from his or her home, from a cell phone on the road, or from a pay phone. Thus, we do not know if the phone call could be traced and the identity of the caller ascertained. The record includes no audio recording or transcript of the call, which would offer the limited opportunity to verify the tipster's veracity through the content of the call and the tipster's tone and delivery. In addition, in Rutzinski and Williams, the tipster observed the alleged illegal activity contemporaneous with his or her call to the police. In contrast, in this case, we do not know when the tipster called in relationship to his or her observing the illegal activity, why the tipster called or where the tipster called from.
. Thus, the tip here is lacking in both quality and quantity. The anonymous tip is unsupported by any indicia of reliability other than innocent information. All the anonymous tip gave Restivo was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he or she knew that the driver of the vehicle had been drinking alcohol nor supplied any basis for believing the informant had inside information. This tip is nothing more than an uncorroborated bald assertion of criminal activity and cannot support a conclusion that Restivo had the requisite reasonable suspicion when he detained Peacock.
By the Court. -- Judgment and order reversed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|