In, People v. Wells, a recent case decided by the California Supreme, the high court once again stretched the boundaries of the fourth amendment to allow a CHP officer to conduct a DUI traffic stop based on an anonymous tip despite the lack of verification of any bad driving to support the tip prior to conducting the stop. The California high court based its decision in large part due to the "grave and immediate" danger to the public of an intoxicated driver who is reported swerving all of the road. The court did not think it was of any consequence that the CHP officer did not observe any erratic driving by the motorist prior to the stop since driver's will supposedly be on their best behavior when they see a police car. It is an absurd notion that a driver is so drunk or intoxicated that one minute they are all over the road and the next minute they can sober up to recognize a police car following them and exercise "increased caution." Also, the court found the unverified stop was justified based on the fact that the CHP officer immediately conducted the traffic stop once he spotted the suspected driver. Isn't that circular reason, because the CHP officer spotted the driver within minutes of the anonymous tip, wouldn't he then be in a position to observe the same alleged swerving and other bad driving that the tipster saw?
Although this case clearly is based on some questionable logic, I recently filed a motion to suppress the evidence in a DUI case I have pending in Fresno Superior Court using this case as support for my motion. You might ask, how is it you can use a case like this to help a suspected DUI driver? The answer is that in my client's case, the anonymous tip concerned an incident at a local bar where he allegedly "impersonated an officer" and was stopped almost an hour after the bar closed at 3:00 am. My client was stopped a few miles away from the bar. Even If the tip was true, that my client impersonated an officer at the bar and left, clearly, there was no imminent or grave public danger at that point. Under the holding of People v. Wells, the officer was not justified in conducting a traffic stop at that point. There was no "grave and immediate" danger to the public that warranted an traffic detention based on an uncorroborated tip. I guess we'll know at the end of this month what the outcome will be. If successful, the motion to suppress will result in any and all evidence of field sobriety tests and breathalyzer testing, as well as observations of the officers being "suppressed," or effectively eliminated and cannot be used against my client. If the motion is granted by the court, this may result in the case being dismissed since the district attorney will have insufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
Mike Mitchell is a Fresno DUI Attorney who has extensive experience defending driving under the influence cases, to find out more visit our dui related websites at http://www.calduilaw.comand www.duicentralvalley.com
