How much information do police need to make a valid investigatory stop?
A recent Iowa Court of Appeals case discussed this question in resolving whether an anonymous, corroborated, tip was enough information for an officer to stop someone alleged to be intoxicated and about to drive.
The defendant, Guy Christoffersen, was charged with his second OWI after he backed into a police cruiser at 2:00 in the afternoon in the parking lot of a Subway restaurant. The police officer that stopped Christoffersen had received an anonymous tip that there was a possible intoxicated driver in a Subway parking lot about to get in a blue GMC pickup truck. The officer was only 6 blocks away at the time and arrived at that Subway in approximately 30 seconds. He saw someone getting into the driver’s seat of a blue GMC truck and pulled in behind the vehicle, in a way that would prevent the truck from being able to exit the parking lot. Just after the officer parked behind his truck, Christoffersen put it in reverse and rammed into the cruiser.
Initially the trial court judge granted Christoffersen’s motion to suppress and threw out the evidence the police had obtained. However, like in State v. Wilkes (discussed in the previous blog entry), the higher court reversed that decision.
At issue was whether the police officer who parked behind Christoffersen had “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot,” in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment and justify making an investigatory stop. Christoffersen attempted to argue that the anonymous tip provided no description of driving, no identification of the driver, and no license plate number, so that the officer did not have enough “specific and articulable facts” from which to glean reasonable suspicion. At the appellate court, however, the State successfully argued the anonymous tip was enough, especially when corroborated by the officer when he saw a blue GMC truck in the parking lot as described.
In ruling against Christoffersen, the appellate court noted the refutable presumption that a citizen informant’s tip is generally reliable, and that the suspicious activity in question was open to the public view, citing the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Walshire (2001). The court in Walshire wrote:
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.
Agreeing with the potential danger a drunk driver poses to the public, the Iowa Court of Appeals held a brief investigatory stop was a minor intrusion upon Mr. Christoffersen, and added that letting him drive off without confirming or dispelling any suspicious activity (i.e., intoxication) might have been considered a dereliction of the officer’s duty.
In the end, as stated above, if a stop made by a police officer is questioned, the State must be able to show by a “preponderance of the evidence that the stopping officer had specific and articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, to reasonably believe criminal activity may have occurred.” (see State v. Tague, Iowa 2004.) Whether an officer had reasonable suspicion is determined in light of all the circumstances confronting the officer in any given situation, including the information available and the type of offense being investigated. The short answer to the question of how much information an officer needs to make an investigatory stop is, unsurprisingly, “it depends.”