961 N.W.2d 272
N.D.2021Background:
- At ~12:30 a.m. dispatch reported a possibly impaired driver; caller John Towes described a silver Ford F-150 with branches in the bed that had been stopping and reversing in the middle of Central Avenue "many times."
- Towes was a known local (citizen informant), said the truck had been parked at a local bar all afternoon, identified the driver as male, and believed he was probably impaired.
- Towes located the truck on 7th Street (north of Delano Avenue), was watching it from down the road, and reported the driver was outside the parked vehicle.
- Sgt. Mortensen arrived ~15 minutes later, found a truck matching Towes’ description with the driver’s door open; as Mortensen approached the door closed and the truck slowly drove away, whereupon Mortensen activated lights and stopped it.
- Van Der Heever was arrested for DUI and moved to suppress evidence from the stop; the district court granted suppression, reasoning the officer should have corroborated Towes’ allegations of criminal activity.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed: it found Towes was a known, reliable citizen informant whose detailed tip (vehicle description, unique detail, conduct, location, and contemporaneous observation) gave Mortensen reasonable suspicion to stop without further corroboration.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mortensen had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle | Towes’ known, detailed tip (vehicle description, branches in bed, location, repeated stopping/reversing, believed impairment) gave reasonable suspicion; Mortensen corroborated location/description | Towes’ report was insufficiently corroborated as to criminal driving; officer should have observed or corroborated the erratic driving before stopping | Reversed: totality of circumstances (known citizen informant + detailed, contemporaneous information + partial corroboration) provided reasonable suspicion; stop lawful |
| Whether an officer must corroborate alleged criminal activity when the tip comes from a known citizen informant | Known/citizen informant tips carry high indicia of reliability; detailed eyewitness-type facts can obviate need for further corroboration | Reliance on a tip alone (even from known informant) is insufficient unless the officer corroborates the criminal conduct | Held that a detailed, contemporaneous tip from an identifiable citizen can supply reasonable suspicion without additional corroboration of the alleged criminal act |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (911 eyewitness-type tip can provide reasonable suspicion without further corroboration)
- State v. Ashby, 892 N.W.2d 185 (2017) (review standards and totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Anderson v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 696 N.W.2d 918 (2005) (known informant vs anonymous tip; bare assertion of possible reckless/drunk driving insufficient)
- Gabel v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 720 N.W.2d 433 (2006) (tip of erratic driving insufficient absent corroboration of illegal conduct)
- City of Dickinson v. Hewson, 803 N.W.2d 814 (2011) (citizen informants are presumed reliable)
- State v. Lykken, 406 N.W.2d 664 (N.D. 1987) (detailed tip from known informant can establish reasonable suspicion)