 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. State4/7/1999
is that some of the details of the information must be verified before arrest occurs."[ ]
This court also distinguishes between anonymous citizen informants and anonymous police informants. The latter, because of questionable motivation, are generally looked upon as less trustworthy than the former. Therefore, the credibility and reliability of police informants must be shown, while with citizen informants, it need only be shown that their information is based on personal knowledge and have some indicia of reliability. Personal knowledge can be inferred from the information given by the citizen.
Anonymous tips will suffice if the caller provides information indicating personal knowledge. The circumstances in Effenbeck v. State were similar to those in this case. In Effenbeck, we upheld a stop based on an anonymous call from a gas station reporting an intoxicated driver. We said:
"The obvious inference is that [the caller] observed Effenbeck personally and reached the Conclusion that Effenbeck was intoxicated based on that observation."[ ]
Likewise, in this case, the obvious inference is that the store clerk personally interacted with a man whom he or she concluded was intoxicated. The dispatch that Hoffman relied upon, unlike that in Mix v. State, provided information concerning the circumstances leading to the broadcast. Moreover, prior to the stop, Hoffman was able to confirm that the car's license plate number matched that provided in the dispatch.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to upholding Judge Kauvar's ruling, we find that Hoffman's stop of Jones' vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion. Hoffman had a dispatcher's report of a possible male DWI in a red 1981 Ford two-door. The dispatch also gave the Ford's license plate number. The dispatch indicated that the male had been harassing the store clerk at Campus Corner. Hoffman, approximately five minutes later, saw what he described as a brown or burgundy 1981 Ford two-door, and confirmed that the license plate number matched that given in the dispatch information.
Based on the information given, Hoffman had sufficient justification to stop the car, even though he could not see who was driving until he had stopped the vehicle. When he approached, he found a male in the passenger seat. After identifying and questioning the male, Hoffman contacted Jones, the driver, to explain why he had stopped the car. During this contact, he became aware that Jones seemed to be intoxicated. His subsequent investigation of Jones for DWI was a permissible extension of a lawful investigatory stop. Accordingly, we find no error.
We AFFIRM Jones' convictions.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|