 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Riding v. State8/26/2004
eport by the "concerned citizen" driver in this case that she believed the defendant was drunk must certainly be considered a reasonable and articulable basis for *778 a suspicion by the officer that the defendant might be driving under the influence of alcohol. It follows that the officer was authorized to detain the defendant briefly for the limited purpose of determining whether he in fact exhibited perceptible manifestations of intoxication.
Noble, supra at 785, 347 S.E.2d 722 See also State v. Williams [FN4] (unidentified concerned citizen who speaks directly to police officer not considered anonymous tipster).
FN4. State v. Williams, 225 Ga.App. 736, 738, 484 S.E.2d 775 (1997).
In this case, the concerned citizen, in person, spoke directly to the police. He specifically described the cars involved, including Riding's red Chevy Blazer with an open hatchback, and reported that the cars were being driven erratically in an illegal manner. Within minutes of the concerned citizen's report, Officer Ballard came into contact with cars matching the concerned citizen's description on the road on which the citizen had last seen them traveling. The concerned citizen's report, along with Officer Ballard's subsequent identification of the cars previously described by the concerned citizen, "must certainly be considered a reasonable and articulable basis for a suspicion by [Officer Ballard] that the defendant [may have been driving erratically and illegally]." Noble, supra at 785, 347 S.E.2d 722.
Although Riding argues the holdings of cases such as VonLinsowe v. State, [FN5] they do not change the result here. In these cases, a tip was received from a citizen who did not report in person directly to a police officer. For example, in VonLinsowe, police received only an anonymous phone call. As such, the tips received in cases such as VonLinsowe must be considered anonymous tips requiring corroboration, not tips from a concerned citizen. Therefore, such cases are distinguishable from the matter at hand, where the concerned citizen reported directly to the authorities.
FN5. VonLinsowe v. State, 213 Ga.App. 619, 445 S.E.2d 371 (1994).
Accordingly, Officer Ballard had the requisite articulable suspicion required to stop Riding, and the trial court correctly denied his motion to suppress.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|