IL: Lesser justification for anonymous tips in DUI cases is based on exigency and doesn’t apply to parked cars

The relaxed justification for a stop of a DUI suspect on an anonymous tip is based on exigency. That standard was not satisfied here because a parked car is less exigent. Suppression affirmed. Defendant here was ratted out by a woman he had an argument with on a date. People v. Smulik, 964 N.E.2d 183, 2012 IL App (2d) 110110 (2012):

[**P11] We note that there is authority that the threat that intoxicated drivers pose to public safety justifies some relaxation of the corroboration requirement. See People v. Shafer, 372 Ill. App. 3d 1044, 1052-53 (2007). Courts taking this view have distinguished anonymous tips concerning drunk drivers from tips concerning individuals carrying weapons. In this regard, the Shafer court relied, in part, on Rutzinski, in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court cited the following passage from State v. Boyea, 765 A.2d 862 (Vt. 2000):

“‘In contrast to the report of an individual in possession of a gun *** an anonymous report of an erratic or drunk driver on the highway presents a qualitatively different level of danger, and concomitantly greater urgency for prompt action. In the case of a concealed gun, the possession itself might be legal, and the police could, in any event, surreptitiously observe the individual for a reasonable period of time without running the risk of death or injury with every passing moment. An officer in pursuit of a reportedly drunk driver on a freeway does not enjoy such a luxury. Indeed, a drunk driver is not at all unlike a “bomb,” and a mobile one at that.’” Rutzinski, 2011 WI 22, ¶ 35, 623 N.W.2d 516 (quoting Boyea, 765 A.2d at 867).

That reasoning does not apply here. Defendant’s vehicle was not moving and Johnson could have attempted to initiate a consensual encounter in order to determine whether the tip relayed by the dispatcher was reliable. See generally People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 544 (2006). The urgency that would have existed if defendant’s vehicle had been in motion was absent here.

Note to Illinois practitioners: Lexis’s citation of the Illinois public domain citation in this case is incorrect. 2012 IL App (2d) 110110 means 2d Dist case number 11-0110. On the Illinois courts opinion page, this case is 2011 IL App (2d) 110110, not 2012, even though the case was decided in 2012. Go figure. Which is correct?