STATE v. ALBA
2015 OK CR 2
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- On July 16, 2013 dispatch received a report from a named caller who said she saw a woman appear intoxicated, walk into a light pole, get into a black SUV, and begin driving; the caller described her own maroon SUV and followed the black SUV.
- Lieutenant Steve Cox located the black SUV being followed by a maroon SUV; the maroon-SUV driver pointed out the black SUV to Cox.
- Cox stopped the black SUV although he observed no traffic violations and arrested Veronica McLaina Alba for driving under the influence.
- Alba moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop was an unconstitutional seizure because it was based on an unreliable tip.
- The Rogers County district court granted the motion to suppress; the State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(5).
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the tip provided sufficient indicia of reliability under the totality of the circumstances and that Navarette controls over Nilsen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the investigatory stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | State: tip plus caller’s follow-up and identification gave sufficient indicia of reliability for reasonable suspicion. | Alba: stop relied on an unreliable tip (analogous to anonymous-tip cases) and therefore seizure was unconstitutional. | The stop was reasonable; facts (named caller, eyewitness details, contemporaneous report, following, and face-to-face identification) gave reasonable suspicion. |
| Should this court follow Navarette or Nilsen on anonymous-tip stops? | State: Navarette’s totality-of-the-circumstances test governs and supports the stop; Navarette is controlling. | Alba: Oklahoma may afford greater state-constitutional protection and should retain Nilsen’s stricter approach. | Court adopts Navarette’s reasoning and overrules Nilsen to the extent inconsistent. |
| Did use of 911 matter here? | State: 911 use can add reliability but this caller was not anonymous, so other factors suffice. | Alba: absence of 911 or other safeguards undermines reliability. | Court: 911 not dispositive here; the caller’s identification and corroborative conduct provided reliability. |
| Appropriate remedy for suppression order? | State: suppression was erroneous; evidence should be admissible. | Alba: suppression justified by unlawful stop. | Court reversed the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) (an anonymous 911 tip can supply reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances when it shows eyewitness contemporaneous observations of dangerous driving)
- Nilsen v. State, 203 P.3d 189 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (held an anonymous tip without corroboration insufficient to justify a stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (permits brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
- Seabolt v. State, 152 P.3d 235 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972) (reasonable suspicion may rest on information from others)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (reasonable suspicion assessed under the totality of the circumstances)