Question

I had a anonymous call in on me. Officer picked me up & started followed me for 4 1/2 miles , only after turning on to a side road for another mile , stopping at a stop sign turning & proceeding for another 1/4 mile doe he pull me over, I do the monkey dance. Long story short , I receive a dui & no other infraction for pulling me over to begin with.I have a lawyer he seems to think no probable cause. any thoughts does this sound right? thanks

Questions:

1. How do you know someone called?
2. How does an officer "pick me up" and THEN follow you?
3. What is a monkey dance?

There doesn't have to be an infraction to pull you over. The police can stop you to do a license check, or can manufacture some reason to stop you. They can say you appeared nervous, you swerved, didn't use your turn signal, etc. They did not have to charge you with anything else. And, if someone reported you and said, "This guy in this car just left my house falling down drunk, you better stop him", then that in and of itself is probable cause---there is a witness against you.

The standard of probable cause for stopping a car is much less than it is for , say for example, entering a home. They don't need much to stop you. An officer can say, "The driver kept checking his rear view mirror and was acting suspicious"---that is enough to stop you. Or, "driver bent over when he saw me as though he were hiding something under the seat"---that is enough to stop you.

But of course, by all means follow your attorneys advice.

1 I had a friend hear it on the scanner

2 the officer was waiting for me, so when I went by the police car he got in behind me.

3 Road side test

TIPS OR ANONYMOUS CALLS - for most DUI cases, an officer cannot stop you based solely on an anonymous call. The officer must observe an actual violation of the law before the stop is legal

The officer stated no reason for pulling me over.

In order to prove there was no probable cause, you are going to have to be able to prove that nothing was said in the 911 call that was substantive---and since you admit that was anonymous, you are going to have difficulty without issuing a subpoena for the tape.

The reality is---Anonymous tips are used frequently by the police.

Read Alabama v. White, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case of U.S. v. Alvarez, or U.S. v. Perrin--all Supreme Court cases that dealt with the detaining of someone based on anonymous tips.

All of these cases deal with more serious crimes than traffic infractions---drugs, bank robbery, etc. However, as I mentioned, police need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is going to be committed before they can stop you--and that standard changes. When it deals with a Terry stop, the laws are much more flexible than they are for, say, them entering your home.

A police man does not have to give you a reason for stopping you. Nor does he have to charge you with anything OTHER than DUI.

I have been stopped by the police when I spilled my purse. I bent over to grab it from falling off the seat and that action happened to co-inside with an unmarked car pulling in behind me. He stopped me, shone his flashlight into the car and could see the contents of my purse dumped all over the floor and seat. He said, "I stopped you to make sure everything was ok, and that you were ok". (because I kept bending down trying to pick up things. I told him I was fine---all he could see was what looked like someone that kept bending over ---he thought I was falling or passing out. That was reason enough to stop me. He said goodnight and left without ever asking for my license or registration.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are very different in car stops. And if the police are not allowed to act on anonymous tips is true, someone needs to tell the Supreme Court---they have rule most consistently that the police can and do that very thing.

Read on:

Under Terry v. Ohio and its progeny, the police may conduct limited stops to investigate suspected criminal activity when the police can point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84, 87 (Minn. 2000) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 99 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968)). Terry applies to investigatory traffic stops. Marben v. State, Dept of Pub. Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Minn. 1980); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 302, 232 N.W.2d 906, 910 (1975).If an anonymous tip bears indicia of reliability, it may justify such a stop.See Olson v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 371 N.W.2d 552, 556 (Minn. 1985) (quoting Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147, 92 S. Ct 1921, 1923-24 (1972)). The Olson court held that where the police make an investigatory stop on the basis of an anonymous tip alone, the caller must provide some specific and articulable facts to support the bare allegation of criminal activity. Id. at 556.
Not much is required, especially for a traffic stop for a suspected traffic offense then in progress.� All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.

Proving otherwise is a long shot, in my opinion, but if your attorney believes he can prevail, I certainly wish you luck.

The conversation between dispatch & said officer was over heard .Was said that I spun my tires & I had a ladder in the back of my truck that I was slinging it around .All the conversation between police & dispatch was over heard ( on the scanner) The ladder in the back of the truck was right where it always is.




I live in a small town in Arkansas ,population 5000




Thank you for your time

Someone called the police about your tires spinning? Geez. I have three Corvettes---if someone called the police every time the tires barked, Id be in jail instead of law school.

I understand that what was said on dispatch was overheard. But the actual 911 call was not heard. The dispatch all does not establish probable cause. The probable cause would be in whomever reported the tires squealing, or/and ladder knocking around.

Since the threshold for probable cause is so low when it comes to car stops, the police will probably manufacture a reason ( he was acting suspicious, glancing over his shoulder, etc.) Doesn't sound like much, but it may be enough. And if you failed the sobriety test, many times a jury thinks the end justifies the means ( although it does not).

I am not sure that squealing tires is probable cause. If your attorney thinks so, then it wouldn't hurt to launch an rigorous defense.

Thank you for your time


this was also at 6.00pm not even dark so the police officer following me for 4 1/2 miles in broad daylight & still not have a reason for pulling me over ,tells me he was gonna pull me over no matter what , all due to the anonymous call.So I guess we will duke it out in Court


You have been a lot of help thanx again

A police officer following you in broad daylight really isn't a violation of anything. And, often times they do for no apparent reasons. Ive had police officers sitting in a spot with radar, pull out BEHIND me as though they were going to stop me, and stay behind me for a while, even though I would turn and go through a subdivision or residential neighborhood. Then, they just turn off. Maybe they are running my tag, checking inspection, or maybe it is just coincidence.

He said to you, "Good evening. I was going to pull you over no matter what?"

Go to court and defend your position. Nothing hurt by doing so. I wish you well.

yes I know day time has no bearing on the situation



He said to you, "Good evening. I was going to pull you over no matter what"

( I was thinking that to myself )the officer following me for that far was gonna pull me over no matter what.The Officer said nothing of the sort LOL




Thanx for the reply's

Got it. I know the feeling----you just get that feeling when you know they're gonna get ya and are waiting to see if they can get a GOOD reason or just a get-by-with-it reason.