IA: An anonymous phoned-in tip of a drunk driver is treated different than other anonymous tips

An anonymous phoned-in tip of a drunk driver is treated different than other anonymous tips because officers usually confirm facts before making a stop. State v. Kooima, 833 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 2013):

Courts around the country tend to agree with the holdings in Wheat and Walshire, finding a tip has the requisite indicia of reliability under the Fourth Amendment when the anonymous tipster relates that he or she has personally observed erratic driving open to public view. See, e.g., People v. Wells, 136 P.3d 810, 815—16 (Cal. 2006) (finding the likelihood of harassment or an insincere or unreliable report of drunk driving is “significantly reduced” by the fact a phoned-in report involves an anonymous tipster providing “a contemporaneous event of reckless driving presumably viewed by the caller” and a predictive “analysis is more appropriate in cases involving tips of concealed criminal behavior such as possession offenses”—not in the DUI context where the illegal activity is visible); State v. Prendergast, 83 P.3d 714, 724 (Haw. 2004) (emphasizing the tip must be “firmly rooted in time and place and based on firsthand observations of criminal activity,” as well as the totality of circumstances and specific, articulable facts); Bloomingdale v. State, 842 A.2d 1212, 1213 (Del. 2004) (upholding a stop when the officer did not observe any erratic driving but pulled over a driver based on an anonymous tipster who stated there was a possible drunken motorist “driving all over the roadway” between two streets; described the make, model, color, and license plate of the vehicle; and relayed the driver’s race and travel route); State v. Crawford, 67 P.3d 115, 119 (Kan. 2003) (holding an anonymous tip had the requisite indicia of reliability when the caller described his or her observations as “reckless driving”); State v. Rutzinski, 623 N.W.2d 516, 519, 527—28 (Wis. 2001) (holding an anonymous tip had the requisite indicia of reliability to justify a stop when the caller told the police of the alleged erratic driving, automobile location, and vehicle description).

Cases holding an anonymous tip had the sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the stop contain three common elements. First, the tipster gave an accurate description of the vehicle, including its location, so the police could identify the vehicle. Next, the tipster based his or her information on personal, eyewitness observations made contemporaneously with a crime in progress that was carried out in public, identifiable, and observable by anyone. When a tipster relates personal observations consistent with drunk driving to the dispatcher, the caller’s basis of knowledge is apparent. Finally, the caller described specific examples of traffic violations, indicating the report was more than a mere hunch. This lends to a greater likelihood the tip will give rise to reasonable suspicion. These three elements allow our courts and the police to determine whether an anonymous tip contains sufficient detail to permit a reasonable inference the tipster had the necessary personal knowledge that a person was driving while intoxicated.

On the other hand, when the anonymous tip does not include details pertaining to the tipster’s personal observation of erratic driving, other facts that would lead to a reasonable inference the tipster witnessed an intoxicated driver, or details not available to the general public as to the defendant’s future actions, state supreme courts have ruled the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Lee, 938 P.2d 637, 640 (Mont. 1997); State v. Miller, 510 N.W.2d 638, 645 (N.D. 1994); Harris v. Commonwealth, 668 S.E.2d 141, 147 (Va. 2008).