AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor after a conditional plea. The conviction was based on evidence obtained following a stop by a sheriff’s deputy, which was initiated due to a citizen informant's report. The informant had provided a detailed description of the Defendant, including his clothing and the color, make, model, and license plate number of his SUV, and had updated law enforcement on the Defendant's whereabouts until the deputy arrived. Upon arrival, the deputy found the Defendant at a gas station, matching the informant's description, and observed signs of intoxication.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence should have been suppressed because the stop was illegal, contending that the citizen informant did not provide sufficient detail to justify the stop.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on the detailed report from the citizen informant, which was corroborated by the deputy's observations upon arrival.

Legal Issues

• Whether the deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on a citizen informant's report.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Linda M. Vanzi with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, found that the deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant. The decision was based on the detailed description provided by the citizen informant, which included the Defendant's appearance, vehicle details, and movements, all of which were corroborated by the deputy's observations upon arrival. The Court distinguished this case from State ex rel. Taxation & Revenue Department Motor Vehicle Division v. Van Ruiten by noting that, although the deputy did not observe the Defendant driving, the combination of the informant's detailed report and the deputy's observations at the gas station provided sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion of DUI. The Court emphasized that reasonable suspicion does not require the officer to witness the criminal activity but only to be aware of specific articulable facts that, when judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity occurred or was occurring (paras 1-6).