STATE v. ALBA
2015 OK CR 2
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- On July 16, 2013, a named citizen caller reported seeing a visibly intoxicated woman walk into a light pole, sway, have trouble keeping her eyes open, and roll something that might be drugs; the caller identified her own maroon SUV and followed the black SUV driven by Alba.
- Dispatch relayed the report to Lieutenant Steve Cox, who located the described black SUV being followed by a maroon SUV; the maroon-vehicle occupant pointed out the black SUV to Cox.
- Cox stopped Alba’s vehicle despite observing no traffic violations and arrested her for driving under the influence.
- Alba moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful stop; the district court granted the motion.
- The State appealed; the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
- The Court reversed the suppression order, holding the totality of the circumstances (eyewitness detail, contemporaneity, caller identification and follow-up, and observed impairment) provided sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigatory stop was constitutional | State: Citizen tip, contemporaneous follow, and officer corroboration supplied reasonable suspicion | Alba: Stop based on an (effectively) anonymous tip lacking reliability; evidence is fruit of unlawful seizure | Reversed suppression — totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes standard for brief investigatory stops)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (reasonable suspicion may rest on information from others)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for tip reliability)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable suspicion depends on content and reliability of information)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (anonymous 911 tip, when sufficiently detailed and contemporaneous, may support reasonable suspicion)
- Nilsen v. State, 203 P.3d 189 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (prior Oklahoma decision suppressing stop based on anonymous tip; distinguished/overruled insofar as inconsistent)
- Seabolt v. State, 152 P.3d 235 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (deference standard for trial court factual findings on suppression)