A recent Supreme Court decision introduced a new element into the reasonable suspicion inquiry regarding DUI arrests. In recent decades, reasonable suspicion has been largely a fact-based inquiry. But now, judges will probably allow officers to make judgement calls based on the facts as they see them. Moreover, these officers may receive a great deal of leeway if their judgements are erroneous.
The Stop
Some stops are based on an informer’s tip. The informer could be almost anyone, but 9-1-1 callers, other officers, and paid informants are the most common sources. Nearly all third-party tip DUI cases involve anonymous tipsters or other officers; paid informants are normally only found in drug cases and other serious felonies.
To evaluate the tip’s reliability, and thus the legality of the stop, the court usually looks at three areas:
- Source: Courts always presume that another officer is a reliable source, although this presumption can be refuted. Anonymous tips are usually reliable if the tipster includes some specific information; in Navarette v. California, the anonymous tipster gave officers the type of vehicle that had run her off the road, and this verisimilitude was deemed sufficient.
- Time: Tips that came in ten minutes ago are more reliable than tips that officers received an hour ago.
-
Specificity: “Dark-colored SUV” could refer to about a quarter of the vehicles on the road, “blue SUV” is a little better, and “blue SUV with some rear-end damage” probably passes muster.
If the stop was illegal, anything that happens subsequently is normally inadmissible at trial.
Reasonable suspicion can also be based on “specific articulable facts” that point to wrongdoing. Most DUI cases start with traffic stops, which clearly fall into this category. Officers may use their experience to help them interpret what they see, but the requirement of concrete facts remains.
A New Wrinkle
In Utah v. Strieff, a South Salt Lake City detective concluded that a certain residence was a drug house, based solely on the fact that some visitors only stayed for brief periods and an anonymous tip that police received about a week earlier. The detective accosted a man who had just left the house in a nearby parking lot, discovered that he had an outstanding warrant, arrested him, and found drugs during a search.
Under the previous analysis, there seems to be no probable cause for the stop. The tip was probably unreliable, given its questionable source and the time delay between the tip and the arrest. Furthermore, the detective observed no illegal activity whatsoever. Nevertheless, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that the stop was legal. First, he observed that the Fourth Amendment only prevents “unreasonable” searches and seizures. He then concluded that the detective was only “negligent” because he made “good-faith mistakes.”
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered that “the Fourth Amendment does not tolerate an officer’s unreasonable searches and seizures just because he did not know any better.” She then drew parallels between this case and an earlier incident in Ferguson, Missouri. “When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens,” she concluded.
Partner with Assertive Attorneys
In most cases, police must have a good reason to initiate a DUI stop. For a confidential consultation with an experienced Schaumburg criminal defense attorney, contact Glasgow & Olsson. We routinely handle matters in Cook County and nearby jurisdictions.
(photo courtesy of Kevin Connors)