State v. Walshire
634 N.W.2d 625, 2001 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 178, 2001 WL 1197692 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An anonymous tip reporting erratic or drunk driving can provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory traffic stop, even without police corroboration of the illegal driving, if the tip reports a contemporaneous, eyewitness observation of conduct that presents an imminent public danger.
Facts:
- The Marion Police Department received an anonymous telephone call from a person using a cellular phone.
- The caller reported they were actively following a vehicle and believed the driver was drunk.
- As evidence of the driver's impairment, the caller stated the vehicle was "driving in the median."
- The caller provided the police with the vehicle's license plate number, make, model, and current location.
- The caller explicitly refused to provide their name to the dispatcher.
- A police officer located the vehicle described in the tip.
- The officer initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle without having personally observed any erratic driving or traffic violations.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeremiah Walshire was charged in an Iowa district court (trial court) with driving under suspension.
- Walshire filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the traffic stop, arguing the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The district court overruled the motion to suppress.
- On a stipulated record, the district court found Walshire guilty of driving under suspension.
- Walshire (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Iowa (highest court), challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory traffic stop based solely on an uncorroborated anonymous cell phone tip reporting that a specific vehicle was being driven erratically by a suspected drunk driver?
Opinions:
Majority - Larson, Justice
Yes. An officer has reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop based on an anonymous tip about drunk driving because such a tip is distinguishable from tips concerning concealed criminal activity. The court differentiated this case from the Supreme Court's holding in Florida v. J.L., which found an anonymous tip about a concealed gun insufficient for a stop. First, the informant here revealed the basis of their knowledge by reporting a crime in progress, open to public view, as an eyewitness. Second, a report of a drunk driver presents a serious, imminent public hazard that calls for a relaxed threshold of reliability, unlike the less immediate danger of a concealed weapon. Third, a traffic stop is a less significant intrusion on privacy than the physical pat-down at issue in J.L. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances, including the urgent public danger and the eyewitness nature of the tip, provided sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the investigatory stop.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant distinction to the general rule from Florida v. J.L. regarding anonymous tips, effectively creating a public safety or imminent danger exception. By prioritizing the urgent need to prevent harm from drunk driving over the requirement that police personally corroborate the alleged illegal activity, the court lowers the threshold for reasonable suspicion in this specific context. The ruling provides law enforcement greater latitude to act on citizen reports of dangerous driving, which has major implications for traffic enforcement and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Future cases will likely test the boundaries of this exception, exploring what other types of reported conduct constitute a sufficiently imminent public hazard to justify a stop on a less-reliable tip.
