25 N.E.3d 896
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- At approximately 2:00 a.m. an anonymous caller reported a drunk driver on Memorial Drive with the vehicle’s license number provided.
- The caller claimed the vehicle was swerving; the information was relayed to Trooper Usom via a 911 dispatch.
- Trooper Usom broadcast the vehicle’s description and the registered owner’s address; the dispatcher identified the owner’s address.
- Trooper Dwyer, upon receiving the broadcast, went to Belmont, observed a vehicle matching the description, and followed it to its driveway at 207 Cross Street.
- Dwyer activated his cruiser lights, stopping the vehicle; the defendant exited and was subjected to questioning, sobriety testing, and ultimately arrested for operating under the influence.
- The trial judge denied suppression, ruling the 911 tip had reliability and created reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 911 tip created reasonable suspicion for a stop | Depiero argues the anonymous tip lacked reliability | Commonwealth contends the tip was reliable and corroborated | Yes; stop supported by reasonable suspicion |
| Whether the tip was sufficiently reliable under the basis of knowledge and veracity tests | Depiero asserts anonymity undermines reliability | Commonwealth argues corroboration and startling event establish reliability | Tip reliability satisfied under circumstances; independent corroboration or startling event allowed reasonable suspicion |
| Whether independent corroboration by Dwyer was needed for the stop | No additional corroboration required given startle and danger | Independent corroboration strengthens the tip’s reliability | Not required; reliability satisfied by contemporaneous observation and startle event under the circumstances |
| Whether the officer’s knowledge of defendant’s probationary status contributed to reasonable suspicion | Depiero contends background information is insufficient | Commonwealth may use defendant’s history as a factor for reasonable suspicion | Overall reasonableness supports stop; prior drunk-driving history contributed to suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 461 Mass. 616 (2012) (basis of knowledge and veracity in anonymous tips; corroboration or immediate startling event can justify suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 456 Mass. 385 (2010) (limits on reliability when caller anonymous; basis of knowledge and veracity tests apply)
- Commonwealth v. Costa, 448 Mass. 510 (2007) (basis of knowledge and veracity in anonymous tips; operator recording evidence matters)
- Commonwealth v. Depina, 456 Mass. 238 (2010) (excited utterance/ startle theory supporting reliability of anonymous tip)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506 (2009) (limits of reliability of anonymous 911 tip without corroboration or identification)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 88 (2005) (emergency doctrine context; concern with stop’s reasonableness)