State v. Burnap, 2012 Ohio 2047

On June 4, 2011, a gas-station employee reported a customer appeared intoxicated; she provided a white truck and license plate, traveling north on Route 23.
Officer Ailes located a white truck with the matching plate at a McDonald’s drive-thru, engine running.
Gas-station attendant identified the truck as the customer she called about; the driver complied with a request to pull over.
Appellant Burnap was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
Burnap moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court overruled the motion.
The Delaware Municipal Court judgment was reversed and the charge dismissed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion	State contends tip plus corroborating observations justified the stop	Burnap argues tip alone insufficient; no independent observations to confirm intoxication	The stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion; suppression reversed; charge dismissed

United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981) (reasonable suspicion may arise from totality of circumstances)
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (tip reliability matters; corroboration may bridge gaps)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (stop requires minimal objective justification)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (variable of objective justification for stops)
State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486 (Ohio App. 1991) (review of factual findings and legal application in suppression rulings)
State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App.3d 592 (Ohio App. 1993) (framework for evaluating suppression challenges)
State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37 (Ohio App. 1993) (application of reasonable-suspicion standard)