 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Zeilinger5/28/2003
im. Id., .
. The supreme court affirmed the stop. It concluded:
First, the tip contained sufficient indicia of the informant's reliability: the information in the tip exposed the informant to possible identification and, therefore, to possible arrest if the tip proved false; the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding Rutzinski's alleged erratic driving, location, and vehicle's description; and Officer Sardina verified many of the details in the informant's tip. Second, the allegations in the tip could suggest to a reasonable police officer that Rutzinski was operating his vehicle while intoxicated. This exigency strongly weighs in favor of immediate police investigation. For these reasons, we conclude that the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11. Id., .
. The State argues that the anonymous tip in this case offers similar sufficient indicia of reliability. It points to the fact that Lehman contacted the informant at his residence where he identified the vehicle in question. The State contends that the caller's identification of himself and his basis of knowledge are sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to stop.
. First, we note the record is unclear whether the person Lehman contacted at the end of the driveway was the informant. The informant's veracity and the tip's overall reliability, however, are beside the point. The trial court found that the informant's tip, at best, was a "generic characterization of suspicious activity." Nothing in the police reports, complaint, or testimony at the motion hearing suggest the informant ever told the police he had any basis to suspect the truck's driver was intoxicated or otherwise engaged in illegal activity. Other than a report of suspicious activity, the only thing the informant told police was that a truck was in the ditch. The trial court's finding that the tip was no more than a "generic characterization of suspicious activity" is not clearly erroneous.
. Thus, even if we assume the tip was completely reliable, it did not contain anything that would allow a law enforcement officer to reach a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Merely being stuck in a ditch and attempting to get out is not illegal. In Rutzinski, the informant told the police the truck was weaving and speeding. These are traffic violations. Here, in contrast, nothing Lehman knew at the time he stopped Zeilinger would have allowed Lehman to suspect illegal activity. The stop was improper and the trial court correctly dismissed the charges.
By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|