State v. Tibbet , 96 Or. App. 116 ( 1989 )


Menu:
  • *118BUTTLER, J.

    Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. The state appeals the trial court’s order suppressing all evidence obtained from the stop of defendant’s vehicle. We affirm.

    At approximately 12:15 p.m., while Trooper Howard was speaking to a motorist whom he had stopped on Highway 101, a driver of a red pickup truck pulled off the highway and informed him that a vehicle had been “driving all over the road” in front of him and should be “checked out.” Howard pointed to a light brown or tan colored pickup truck that passed them just then, and the informant said that it was the vehicle to which he was referring. It was raining, and visibility was limited. Howard did not see anything unusual about the vehicle or how it was being driven. He did not obtain the name or address of the informant or his license number. He radioed the Tillamook police and requested that they stop the pickup.

    Tillamook Police Chief White followed the truck for about a quarter of a mile. Although he saw nothing abnormal about defendant’s driving, he stopped her truck, as Howard had requested. White notified Howard that defendant appeared to be “highly intoxicated.” Howard proceeded to the scene of the stop and arrested defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicants. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop on the ground that the officers lacked a reasonable suspicion to believe that she had committed a crime.

    An officer may make an investigatory stop of a person who he “reasonably suspects” has committed a crime. ORS 131.615(1). That phrase is defined in ORS 131.605(4):

    “ ‘Reasonably suspects’ means that a peace officer holds a belief that is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place the peace officer acts as authorized in ORS 131.605 to 131.625.”

    It is clear that White, who stopped defendant, had no basis for effecting a stop, other than what he had been told by Howard. The question, then, is whether Howard had an objective basis for reasonably suspecting that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants.

    When an informant’s tip provides the basis for á stop, *119that tip must have some indicia of reliability in order for it to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime. State v. Faulkner, 89 Or App 120, 123, 747 P2d 1011 (1987); State v. Black, 80 Or App 12, 19, 721 P2d 842 (1986). The only information that Howard had came from an anonymous driver who told him that he had observed a vehicle in front of him “driving all over the road,” and pointed out a pickup truck that passed Howard and the informant as they were talking.1 Howard did not see anything unusual about the way in which the pickup was being driven.

    The state would distinguish this case from State v. Black, supra, on the basis that the anonymous informant in Black gave the police information over the telephone, whereas the anonymous informant here gave the information in person. Nevertheless, the police did not get his name, address, telephone number, car license number or any other information that would have permitted the police to contact him. The informant remained just as anonymous as the informant in Black and, as in Black, did not expose himself to possible criminal and civil prosecution if his report was false. See State v. Montigue, 288 Or 359, 605 P2d 656, cert den 449 US 846 (1980).

    We would not uphold a search warrant that was issued on the basis of an affidavit in which the only information supporting probable cause came from an anonymous informant, even though the informant gave the information in person to the affiant. There is no reason why the test should be any different here in terms of assessing the reliability (credibility) of the informant.

    There was no error in suppressing all evidence obtained as a result of the stop of defendant’s vehicle.

    Affirmed.

    It is difficult to understand how the pickup that had been in front of the informant passed him and Howard as they were talking.

Document Info

Docket Number: 88-7034; CA A48395

Citation Numbers: 771 P.2d 654, 96 Or. App. 116

Judges: Buttler, Deits, Richardson, Rossman, Warren

Filed Date: 4/12/1989

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/22/2023