 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bloomingdale v. State1/2/2004
mous 911 call reporting that a "suspicious black male wearing a blue coat" had been standing in a particular location for some time. [FN23] An officer responded and within a few minutes of the initial call observed a man fitting the description standing with a companion in a nearby location. [FN24] The man in the blue coat, Jones, had his hands in his pockets. The officer approached Jones and ordered him to stop and remove his hands from his pockets. [FN25] Jones began walking away from the officer, who repeated his order and then grabbed Jones' hands in an attempt to remove them from the pockets. Jones then threw an object over the officer's head. After a struggle, the officer subdued Jones and recovered the object, *1218 which contained cocaine. [FN26] In the criminal proceedings against him, Jones sought to suppress the evidence seized during his encounter with police, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. We held that the anonymous 911 complaint did not furnish the officer with reasonable suspicion to stop Jones because the 911 complaint reported readily observable facts, the officer had not made any observations that added anything to those facts and there was no incriminating information in the anonymous tip. [FN27] Therefore, the stop was held to be invalid, and the evidence stemming from the stop was inadmissible. The defendant's conviction and sentence were reversed.
FN23. 745 A.2d 856, 858 (Del.1999).
FN24. Id.
FN25. Id. at 859.
FN26. Id.
FN27. Id. at 869-70; see also Flonnory v. State, 805 A.2d 854, 858 (Del.2001) (holding that where law enforcement officers received an anonymous tip describing the location and appearance of a person who purportedly possessed an illegal substance, "the simply confirmation of readily observable facts does not enhance the reliability of an anonymous tip to the level required for a finding of reasonable suspicion").
The case before us is distinguishable from both J.L. and Jones. In Bloomingdale's case, the Superior Court followed the holding of the Vermont Supreme Court in State v. Boyea. [FN28] In Boyea, a defendant challenged her driving under the influence conviction on the basis that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her because nothing he observed while following her vehicle for a mile and a half confirmed an anonymous report that she had been driving erratically. [FN29] The police had received a report from an anonymous caller reporting that "a blue-purple Volkswagen Jetta with New York plates, traveling south on I-89 in between Exits 10 and 11[was] operating erratically." [FN30] An officer located the vehicle just north of Exit 10, followed it for about a mile and a half, and then pulled it over. After observing indications that the driver was indeed intoxicated, the officer arrested her for driving under the influence. [FN31]
FN28. 171 Vt. 401, 765 A.2d 862 (Vt.2000).
FN29. Id. at 863.
FN30. Id.
FN31. Id.
The Vermont Supreme Court upheld Boyea's driving under the influence conviction. The court found the tip in Boyea more reliable and predictive [FN32] than the "bare-bones description" provided in the tip in J.L. The court stated that in Boyea "the informant described with particularity, and accurately predicted, the location of a fast moving vehicle on a freeway, information which the officer confirmed within minutes of the call." The court also deemed a traffic stop to impose a smaller intrusion on individual liberty than does a search and seizure of an individual's person. [FN33] The court weighed the risk of harm arising from a failure to stop the individual driving erratically against the decreased level of intrusiveness of a traffic stop and held that the r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|