983 N.W.2d 562
S.D.2022Background
- A 14-year-old, A.R., called dispatch reporting her mother, Malia Rosa, "sounded drunk" on the phone, gave her name, phone number, birthdate, and the Dollar Tree location and described a white van; A.R. risked liability by identifying herself.
- Officers located the described van in the Dollar Tree lot, watched from a distance, and observed Rosa exit the store, get in the van, and drive away; officers saw no erratic driving or traffic violations.
- Officers followed the van to a Walmart parking lot, blocked Rosa in, approached her, detected an odor of alcohol, conducted field sobriety tests, and arrested Rosa for DUI and open container.
- Rosa moved to suppress, arguing the stop violated the Fourth Amendment; the circuit court denied suppression, finding A.R.’s tip reliable due to familial relationship and corroboration of the van/location.
- The State did not contest that a seizure occurred or that probable cause was lacking; the sole contested legal issue on appeal was whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Rosa.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, concluding the totality of the circumstances supplied reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosa was "seized" | State accepted seizure occurred | Rosa argued she was seized | State concedes seizure; court treated stop as a seizure |
| Probable cause for arrest/stop | State did not claim probable cause | Rosa argued no probable cause existed | State conceded lack of probable cause |
| Reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle | A.R.’s identified tip + corroboration of van/location + recent contact gave officers particularized suspicion of DUI | Tip was conclusory ("sounded drunk"), lacked contemporaneous personal observations, and officers had no corroboration of intoxication | Court held tip + corroboration + familial ID supplied reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances |
| Reliability of familial, identified informant | State: known, identified family member who risked liability is relatively reliable and predicted future behavior | Rosa: personal relationship may create motive to lie; tip lacked specific factual observations of intoxication | Court credited identity, lack of indicia of ulterior motive, and corroboration of vehicle/location to find the tip sufficiently reliable |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (tip predicting future behavior can supply reasonable suspicion when it shows inside information)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (accurate prediction of future behavior can corroborate an informant’s reliability)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (identifying details alone do not establish reliability for allegations of concealed criminal activity)
- State v. Scholl, 684 N.W.2d 83 (S.D. 2004) (tip describing vehicle and suspect leaving a bar supported reasonable suspicion for DUI stop)
- State v. Stanage, 893 N.W.2d 522 (S.D. 2017) (conclusory allegation of drunk driving by an identified informant insufficient without corroboration of intoxication)
- State v. Ostby, 951 N.W.2d 294 (S.D. 2020) (known informant who personally observes activity and risks liability may be sufficiently reliable without further corroboration)