Reasonable Suspicion and Tipsters

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that before the police can stop a motorist there must be reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Usually this reasonable suspicion arises out of the police officer’s observations of the motorist’s driving. An investigative stop of a motorist does not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1 at 22.

“To justify a particular intrusion, the officer must demonstrate ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.’” Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d at 299. Evaluating the facts and inferences requires the court to consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances. State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291 paragraph one of syllabus.

But sometimes a police officer receives word from others that a motorist might be intoxicated. If he spots the motorist and follows him for awhile, but does not see any traffic violations, then the officer has a choice to make. Does he let the driver go, or pull him over based upon the tip he received? Most police officers will err on the side of caution and pull the driver over even without any evidence of erratic driving or a traffic violation.

The Ohio Supreme Court addressed the issue of tipsters and reasonable suspicion in the seminal case on tipsters in DUI matters in the case of Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295. According to the Weisner court, “the appropriate analysis is whether the tip itself has sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the investigative stop.” Weisner at 299. The informant’s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are highly relevant factors in determining the value of the informant’s tip. Id.

The United States Supreme Court has held that an identified citizen informant may be highly reliable and, therefore, a strong showing as to the other indicia of reliability may be unnecessary: ‘[I]f an unquestionably honest citizen comes forward with a report of criminal activity-which if fabricated would subject him to criminal liability-we have found rigorous scrutiny of the basis of his knowledge unnecessary.’ Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213 at 233-234. In light of these principles, federal courts have routinely credited the identified citizen informant with greater reliability.

Many Ohio appellate courts have accorded the identified citizen witness higher credibility than police informants in the criminal world. One Court of Appeals held that a telephone call from a citizen stating that a motorist might be having a seizure was sufficient to justify an investigative stop that produced evidence of drunken driving. The court reasoned that “‘[i]nformation from an ordinary citizen who has personally observed what appears to be criminal conduct carries with it indicia of reliability and is presumed to be reliable.’” State v. Loop, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 1126 (March 14, 1994) Scioto Co. App. No. 93 CA 2153 at 8; Fairborn v. Adamson, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 9664 (November 17, 1987) Greene Co. App. No. 87 CA 13; State v. Jackson, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 847 (March 5, 1999) Montgomery Co. App. No. 17226.

A tip from an identified citizen informant who is a victim or witnesses a crime is presumed reliable, particularly if the citizen relates his or her basis of knowledge. Weisner at 300-301.

Fight your DUI charge

Technorati Tags: dui, ovi, omvi, dui law, dui arrest, ohio dui law, dui conviction, dui charge, drunk driving