{"id":6524,"date":"2012-05-01T09:55:55","date_gmt":"2012-01-10T10:57:17","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-10T10:57:17","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6524","title":{"rendered":"IL: Lesser justification for anonymous tips in DUI cases is based on exigency and doesn&#8217;t apply to parked cars"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>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. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.il.us\/court\/Opinions\/AppellateCourt\/2012\/2ndDistrict\/2110110.pdf\">People v. Smulik<\/a>, 964 N.E.2d 183, 2012 IL App (2d) 110110 (2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[**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 <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14714143269355532835&amp;q=372+Ill.+App.+3d+1044&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,37\">People v. Shafer<\/a>, 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 <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=4531439379390919383&amp;q=Rutzinski&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,37\">Rutzinski<\/a>, in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court cited the following passage from <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=13966539225143579988&amp;q=765+A.2d+862&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,37\">State v. Boyea<\/a>, 765 A.2d 862 (Vt. 2000):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201c\u2018In 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 \u201cbomb,\u201d and a mobile one at that.\u2019\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=4531439379390919383&amp;q=Rutzinski&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,37\">Rutzinski<\/a>, 2011 WI 22, \u00b6 35, 623 N.W.2d 516 (quoting <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=13966539225143579988&amp;q=Boyea&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,37\">Boyea<\/a>, 765 A.2d at 867).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>That reasoning does not apply here. Defendant&#8217;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 <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=2715887263483106614&amp;q=People+v.+Luedemann&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,37\">People v. Luedemann<\/a>, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 544 (2006). The urgency that would have existed if defendant&#8217;s vehicle had been in motion was absent here.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Note to Illinois practitioners: Lexis&#8217;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 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.il.us\/court\/Opinions\/recent_appellate.asp\">Illinois courts opinion page<\/a>, this case is 2011 IL App (2d) 110110, not 2012, even though the case was decided in 2012. Go figure. Which is correct?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6524\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}