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

• A female driving a silver pickup truck was reported by a convenience store employee to appear intoxicated. The employee provided a license plate number, location, and direction of travel. Sargent Foreman located a silver pickup with a similar license plate number, initiated a stop, and commenced a DWI investigation, leading to the Defendant's conviction (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the traffic stop leading to her arrest and conviction for DWI was not supported by reasonable suspicion, questioning the accuracy of the vehicle description, the caller's failure to specify why they believed the driver was intoxicated, and the absence of detailed indicia of reliability or credibility (paras 1, 3-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the traffic stop leading to the Defendant's arrest and conviction for DWI was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Disposition

• The conviction for DWI was upheld (para 5).

Reasons

• M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring, found that the traffic stop was justified based on the tip and the officer’s observations. The court referenced several precedents supporting the notion that investigatory stops based on anonymous tips, corroborated by officer observations, are justified in cases of suspected drunk driving. The court disagreed with the Defendant's contention that the inaccuracies in the vehicle description and the lack of detailed reasons for suspecting intoxication were fatal to the justification for the stop. The court highlighted the inherent reliability of citizen-informants, especially when it appears they have personally observed the details they report. The specificity provided by the caller regarding the vehicle's description and location, along with the expressed concern for DWI, was deemed sufficient for inferring personal observation and justifying the stop (paras 1-5).