By Chet Brokaw, The Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A law officer can stop a suspected drunken driver based on a tipster’s call if the tip includes sufficient information to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The high court’s unanimous decision upholds Lonnie Lee Scholl’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol in Sioux Falls on Sept. 13, 2002.
Scholl had argued the evidence against him, including a blood-alcohol test, should be thrown out because the Sioux Falls Police Department officer did not have sufficient reason to stop him.
But the Supreme Court said the stop was justified. The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Scholl because a caller’s tip included details about the vehicle, its location and the basis for the caller’s belief that Scholl was driving while intoxicated, the justices said.
According to court records, an informant called a police dispatcher and reported seeing a man who stumbled and had problems getting into his pickup after leaving a Sioux Falls bar. The informant described the vehicle as a blue Toyota pickup with a topper, and he provided the number of the Nebraska license plate on the vehicle.
The tipster, who gave police his name, followed the vehicle and continued to give the dispatcher updates on its position as it moved through Sioux Falls.
An officer located the pickup and followed it for about 11 blocks, but the officer witnessed no erratic driving or traffic violations. After the officer confirmed that the license plate number and vehicle description matched the information provided by the tipster, he stopped the pickup.
Scholl failed a field sobriety test, and a later test showed his blood-alcohol content was 0.227 percent, nearly three times the legal limit under South Dakota law.
Scholl was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail, with 100 days suspended, and he was fined $650.
In his appeal, Scholl argued his conviction should be thrown out because his constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.
However, the Supreme Court said prior court decisions have established that a law officer can stop a vehicle if a citizen’s tip is sufficiently detailed and reliable to create a reasonable suspicion.
Courts have noted that society has an interest in making such stop based on tips because drunken drivers pose an imminent threat to public safety.
Courts have ruled that officers cannot stop vehicles based on anonymous tips that include few details and no explanation of the basis for suspicion, the South Dakota Supreme Court said.
In Scholl’s case, however, the tipster provided detailed information about the vehicle and its location and why he suspected Scholl was driving while intoxicated, the justices said.
The officer was justified in stopping Scholl because the tipster’s information provided a reasonable suspicion that Scholl was driving while intoxicated, the high court said.