 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Tuomi12/10/2002
. Aaron Tuomi appeals an order denying suppression of evidence obtained during a traffic stop. He also appeals his resulting conviction for operating with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration (OWPAC), second offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b). Tuomi argues that an anonymous tip reporting he had backed into another vehicle and fled the scene did not provide police with reasonable suspicion to stop him. Because we agree that the tip did not provide the police with reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, we reverse the order denying the suppression motion and the judgment of conviction.
Background
. The facts are undisputed. On June 23, 2001, Brown County deputy sheriff Matthew Ronk received a dispatch notice of a possible hit and run that had occurred in a bar's parking lot. An anonymous informant, claiming to be in the parking lot and a witness to the accident, had called and provided the dispatcher with a vehicle description and its license plate number.
. Approximately five minutes later, Ronk saw the vehicle a mile from the accident site and initiated a traffic stop. When he made contact with the driver, Tuomi, Ronk noticed a strong odor of alcohol and proceeded with field sobriety tests. Tuomi was ultimately arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated, second, and OWPAC, second. At the suppression hearing, Tuomi conceded the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the field tests once he was pulled over, but argued the anonymous tip was insufficient to provide Ronk with reasonable suspicion to make the initial traffic stop. Ronk testified that the tip was the sole basis for the stop-he had not observed Tuomi commit any traffic or moving violations.
Analysis
. Investigative traffic stops are governed by the "reasonableness requirement" of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution. See State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, -14, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516. To pass constitutional muster, an officer initiating an investigative traffic stop must have, at a minimum, a reasonable suspicion that the driver of the vehicle has committed an offense. See id. at . Reasonable suspicion is based on specific and articulable facts that together with reasonable inferences therefrom reasonably warrant a suspicion that an offense has occurred or will occur. State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 6, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999). Whether a constitutional violation has occurred as the result of an investigative stop is a question of law we review de novo. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22 at .
. In some circumstances, information contained in an informant's tip may justify an investigative stop. Id. at . Before an informant's tip can give rise to reasonable suspicion and grounds for an investigative stop, the police must consider its reliability and content. Id. In assessing the reliability of a tip, due weight must be given to (1) the informant's veracity and (2) the informant's basis of knowledge. Id. at .
. An anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant's veracity or basis of knowledge. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270 (2000). " owever, there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits `sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion ....'" Id. (citation omitted). A totally anonymous tip must contain not only a bald assertion that the suspect is engaged in illegal activity, but also verifiable information indicating how the tipster came to know of the alleged illegal activity. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22 at .
. The State attempts to analogize Tuomi's case to Rutzinski. In
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|