*1 Plaintiff-Respondent, Wisconsin, State
v. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. Paul Rutzinski,
Supreme Court argument No. 98-3541-CR. Oral November 2000. Decided March 22WI (Also 516.) reported in 623 N.W.2d *3 defendant-appellant-petitioner For the there were by Craig Fitzgerald Mastantuono, briefs A. Maureen B. Fitzgerald Mastantuono, C., and Milwaukee, & S. argument by Craig oral A. Mastantuono. plaintiff-respondent argued
For the the cause was attorney general, Weinstein, Warren D. assistant Doyle, attorney on with whom the briefs was James E. general. requires WILCOX, 1. JON P. J. This case us cell-phone to decide under what circumstances a call provides justi- from an unidentified motorist sufficient investigative stop. Relying fication for an traffic on call, information obtained from such a a Greendale (Officer Sardina), officer, Jerome Sardina made investigative petitioner, traffic Paul (Rutzinski). During stop, Rutzinski Officer operat- Sardina evidence that Rutzinski obtained ing his motor vehicle while intoxicated. subsequently suppress
¶ 2. Rutzinski moved to during stop, arguing the evidence obtained the traffic that the information in the motorist's call was not suffi- *4 ciently justify stop and, therefore, reliable to stop was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the United States I, Constitution and Article Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Circuit Court for County, Jeffery Judge, Kremers, Milwaukee A. denied judgment Rutzinski's motion and entered a of convic- finding guilty illegally operating tion, Rutzinski appeals, motor vehicle while intoxicated. The court of unpublished in State Rutzinski, v. 98-3541-CR, Nо. (Wis. slip op. App. May 1999), Ct. affirmed the judgment. circuit court
¶ 3. For the reasons set below, forth we hold that under the circumstances case, of this the information provided justification in the motorist's call sufficient investigative stop Accordingly, for an of Rutzinski. we appeals. affirm the decision of the court of I—I undisputed. 4. The relevant facts are On Feb- ruary approximately p.m., 12, 1998, at 10:00 Officer patrol Sardina was on in Greenfield near 68th Street Grange and Avenue when he overheard a dis- patch requesting squad respond to the area of 51st Grange According dispatch, Street and Avenue. to the calling phone an unidentified motorist from a cell reported observing pickup that he or she was a black weaving varying speed truck lane, "tailgating." within its its from too responded slow, fast to too and Officer Sardina dispatch.
to the dispatcher ¶ 5. The then issued a second dis- patch, indicating the motorist was still on the phone, pickup and he or she and the black had traveled Grange light to 60th Street Avenue. In of this information, Officer Sardina determined that the vehi- heading positioned cles were Hence, him. he toward his squad car in the median and waited. Shortly
¶ 6. thereafter, Officer Sardina saw the pass pulled squad vehicles his location. He then his car pickup. Upon doing dispatcher behind the black so, the stated that the motorist had indicated that hе or she *5 ahead of the truck and saw Officer
was in the vehicle squad car, and that Officer Sardina was fol- Sardina's lowing the correct truck. Although indepen-
¶ 7. Officer Sardina did not any driving, dently signs he then of erratic observe emergency lights and conducted a traffic activated his stop During stop, pickup. Officer of the black Rutzinski, the driver of the Sardina observed glassy, eyes, pickup, had smelled like alco- bloodshot slurring speech. subsequent hol, and his A was Intoxilyzer that Rutzinski had a .21 test revealed The motorist who had blood-alcohol concentration. driving pulled reported Rutzinski s erratic also over stop. Although when Officer Sardina initiated the speak Sardina, did not Officer he or she motorist with supervi- speak did at that time Officer Sardina's with However, sor. there is no record of the motorist's name any identification, or other or indication of what was supervisor said Officer Sardina's and the between motorist. light
¶ 8. In of the evidence as a result obtained stop, charged of Officer Sardina's the State Rutzinski operating with one count of a motor vehicle while under intoxicant, offense, the influence of an fourth and one operating prohibited count motor vehicle with a response, concentration, alcohol fourth offense. suppress Rutzinski filed motion to the evidence argued stop. obtained as result Rutzinski present the unidentified motorist's call did not reliable grounds upon justify stop. аnd credible which to provided And the call because Officer Sardina's sole stop, contended, basis for the Rutzinski unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Arti- I, cle Section 11.
¶ 9. The trial court denied Rutzinski's motion. pled Thereafter, Rutzinski "no contest" to one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, fourth offense.1 The circuit court *6 accepted plea judgment Rutzinski's and entered accordingly. appealed
¶ 10. Rutzinski then the circuit court's judgment again arguing conviction, that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment and I, Article Sec- May appeals rejected tion 11,1999, 11.2 On the court of argument Rutzinski's and affirmed the circuit court judgmеnt. unpublished slip op. Rutzinski, at 3. petitioned
¶ 11. Rutzinski thus this court for granted. review, which we
HHI—I ¶ 12. Rutzinski asks this court to determine whether Officer Sardina's violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution3 and
1The circuit court dismissed the second count on based plea judgment Rutzinski's and of conviction on count one. 2 971.31(10) (1999-2000), Pursuant to Wis. Stat. appel an § late during appeal judgment court review from denying evidence, conviction an order suppress a motion to not withstanding the judgment fact that the trial court entered the upon plea of conviction the defendant's of no contest. See State v. Milwaukee, 646, 49, Princess Cinema 96 Wis. 2d 292 648 — (1980). N.W.2d 807 3The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: houses, right people persons, The in their to be secure effects,
papers, against seizures, and unreasonable searches and violated, issue, upon proba- shall not be and no Warrants shall but cause, by affirmation, supported particularly ble Oath or and 735 Constitution.4 I, Article Section 11 of Wisconsin undisputed requires apply to consti- This us facts presents such, As this case tutional standards. question novo. v. Jack- law, which we review de State (1989). son, 824, 829, 2d 434 386 147 Wis. N.W.2d consistently date, To have conformed we interpretation 11 its I, of Article Section and our protections developed with the law attendant Supreme Court under the Fourth United States Secrist, 208, 2d 689 201, State v. 224 Wis. Amendment. (1999). provisions, Under both the consti N.W.2d imperative is that all searches seizures be tutional objectively under the circumstances reasonable existing the search or seizure. Whren v. time of (1996); States, United 517 U.S. State v. Wald (1996). ner, 55-56, 2d 206 Wis. N.W.2d *7 Investigative stops, regardless ¶ 14. traffic of governed by duration, how brief in are this constitu- requirement. Whren, U.S. at tional reasonableness 517 Guzy, 663, 674-75, State v. 139 2d 407 809-10; Wis. (1987). require- N.W.2d 548 In accordance with this may temporarily stop suspicious ment, a officer searched, describing place persons things or the to be and the to be seized. by against
The is the states Fourth Amendment enforceable means the Due clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Process (1961). Ohio, 643, Mapp v. 367 U.S. 655 4 I, pro 11 Article Section of Wisconsin Constitution vides: houses, persons, right people The of the to be secure in their papers, against effects searches and unreasonable and seizures violated; upon probable shall not be and no warrant shall issue but cause, affirmation, supported particularly oath or and describ- things
ing
place
persons
to
and the
to
be searched
or
be seized.
736
quo
determining
to maintain the
vehicle
status
while
identity
obtaining
or
driver
other relevant
Hensley,
information. United States v.
221,
469 U.S.
(1985); Guzy,
pass
However,
139 Wis. 2d at
to
muster
I,
under
Fourth Amendment and Article
initiating
investigative stop
Section
an officer
suspicion
have,
minimum,
must
aat
a reasonable
that
occupants
the driver
or
the vehicle have committed
Hensley,
Guzy,
228;
an offense.
place reasonably period for a reasonable of time when the officer suspects person committing, such is to commit or has is about crime, committed a and demand the and name address person explanation person's and an Such conduct. detention temporary questioning vicinity shall be conducted the where person stopped. *8 previously we explained, interpreted As have 968.24 must be § light Jackson, and the Terry following cases it. State v. (1989). 824, 831, 434 2dWis. N.W.2d 386 All subsequent references to the Statutes are to Wisconsin the 1997—98 version unless otherwise indicated. reviewing determine
¶
a set
facts to
15. When
give
а reasonable
those facts could
rise to
sus-
whether
picion,
approach
apply a commonsense
to
courts should
the interests of the individual
strike a balance between
unnecessary
unduly
being stopped to
or
be free from
seizures, and the
intrusive searches and
interests
effectively
investigate
prevent, detect,
the State
Hensley,
228; Waldner,
I—II—I hH present ¶ case, 16. In does not Rutzinski dis- pute that could initiated Officer Sardina have an investigative personally stop if he had traffic observed driving. alleged However, Rutzinski's erratic as correctly indicates, Officer Sardina did Rutzinski not any suspicious driving; personally rather, observe he upon relied picion. the motorist's to form a reasonable sus- tip, argues, provide
This Rutzinski did not justify stop. sufficient information to circumstances, information some con- justify tip may tained in an informant's investigative stop. Williams, v. See Adams 407 U.S. (1972) (rejecting argument "that reasona- only cause for a and frisk can based on ble personal observation, rather than on officer's infоrma- *9 by supplied person"). tion another However, tips vary greatly reliability. Thus, informants' in before tip give grounds an informant's can rise to for an inves- tigative stop, police reliability the must consider its and content. Tips
¶ 18. should exhibit reasonable indicia of reliability. v. Gates, Illinois 462 U.S. Cf. (1983) (applying probable same standard cause determination). assessing reliability tip, the of a due (1) weight given veracity; must be to: informant's (2) knowledge. and of at informant's basis Id. 230. light These considerations should in be viewed of the "totality circumstances," of the not and as discrete ele- rigid "[A] deficiency ments of a more test: in one [consideration] may compensated for, in determin- ing by tip, strong showing a overall оf a reliability." other, as to the or indicia some other Although per reliability, Id. 233. there is no se rule of general spectrum these considerations outline a potential tips types specific that, under circum- give suspicion. stances, can rise ato reasonable spectrum ¶ 19. one On end are cases in police a which receive from an informant whom they reasonably justified believing are in to be truthful. Supreme The United States Court examined situa- Williams, in v. Adams, tion Adams 143. In U.S. approached informant officer and indicated particular nearby that a individual vehicle was in possession drugs gun. and a Id. at 144-45. The personally informant, officer knew the and the inform- providеd ant had in the officer with information past. Thus, Id. at 146. on the based informant's tip, independently investigating but or without cor- any roborating therein, of the facts the officer located individual identified and conducted an protective pat-down weap- investigative stop for result, obtained Id. at 145. As ons. incriminating Id. at 145. evidence. suppress Upon review of a motion to Supreme stop, *10 as a the
evidence obtained result tip sufficiently the Court held that informant's justify stop. First, at 149. the Court to the Id. reliable provided explained that because informant had the the per- past information in the and "came forward officer sonally immediately give to that was information opportu- scene," at the the officer had some verifiable veracity. nity Id. Second, to at 146. assess informant's tip that the came from the Court reasoned because an personally investigating informant whom the officer knew, the officer could arrested the informant for have proven giving tip tip had the to untrue. Id. at a false be potential arrest, threat of the Court 146-47. This explained, could lead reasonable officer to conclude tip; provide that the would not a false informant presume words, officer that the inform- other the could light tip 147. In of ant's was reliable. Id. at these upheld considerations, the Court the without any analysis undertaking to determine the further knowledge. at informant's Id. 146-47. basis ¶ 21. illustrates that in some circum- Adams veracity stances, an can with informant's afford justify investigative stop. an sufficient strong is, if That there are indicia the informant's necessarily veracity, any there need not indicia of knowledge. the informant's basis spectrum ¶ 22. the are At the other end of cases totally anonymous provides where informant the through police independent which, with a investigation corroboration, or other indicates possesses informant "inside information." The Supreme Court examined this scenario Alabama v. (1990). White, case, 496 U.S. anonymous telephone stating
received call that the particular par- defendant would leave a address "аt a Plymouth wagon ticular time in a brown station with right taillight broken," lens drive to a certain possession motel, named and be in of a brown attach containing approximately case one ounce Id. cocaine. police proceeded information, 327. Based on this by to the address indicated the informant and located a wagon matching station tip. the vehicle described in approximately At Id. the time indicated informant, the officers observed the defendant leave building wagon. and enter the station Id. The then officers followed the defendant's vehicle as it along headed the most direct route to the motel named tip. prior reaching in the Id. Just motel, stopped officers the defendant and undertook a consen- *11 During sual search of her car. Id. this the search, they case, officers located the attache which found to marijuana contain and cocaine. Id. The defendant sub- sequently suppress moved the to evidence as obtained contending search, of result the that the did officers suspicion not have reasonable to conduct the initial investigative stop. Id. at 327-28. although
¶ review, 23. On the Court held that case," "a close the circumstances, was under the anonymous tip, officers, as corroborated the "exhib- reliability justify ited sufficient indicia of to the investigatory stop." explained Id. at 332. The Court tip relatively degree reliability, that "if a has a low of required req- more information will be to establish the suspicion quantum required uisite of than would be if tip the more reliable." Id. at It were 330. then noted tip provided virtually issue, itself, the at no veracity or of knowl- the basis
indication of informant's "something edge. Accordingly, more" than 329. Id. at tip required. (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. Id. the was 227).
¶ noted that However, the Court further easily only tip contained informant’s not obtainable type facts such as the whereabouts or defendant's predicted drove, the defendant's of car she but also at a time she would leave certain future behavior —that pre particular at 332. These to a motel. Id. drive exрlained, important, the because dictions were Court accuracy predictions verified, the once the police of reasonably had infer that the informant could police is, That veri "inside information." Id. when they predictions, had that the fied the reason believe knowledge. of informant had firm basis of This basis tip knowledge, provided concluded, with the Court justify investiga sufficient indicia although anonymous tip stop. Hence, tive Id. the initial investigative justify stop, not, itself, cor did an predictions of the did. roboration informant's in cases where the 25. White illustrates tip informant, receive a from unidentifiable be deemed reliable if it con- nonetheless tains "inside information" or a similar verifiable explanation how informant came to know tip, inde- information in the pendently which the in turn way, corroborate. Stated another if a strong indicia of an informant's basis contains necessarily knowledge, any there need not indicia veracity. the informant's
¶ mindful, however, that 26. We are the Adams analyses by per and White do not create a se rule which judge objective investiga- to the reasonableness an stop tip. above, As tive based on an informant's stated
742 assessing stop constitutionally when whether a is rea- reviewing sonable, a court must balance the interests being stopped against of the individual the interests of effectively Hensley, the State to root out crime. 469 ¶ 228; McGill, U.S. at 18; Waldner, 2000 WI at light balancing recog- Wis. 2d 56. In test, at we may nize that there be circumstances an where tip reliability informant's does not exhibit indicia of neatly fit the within bounds Adams-White spectrum, allegations suggest but where the public safety an imminent threat to the or exi- other gency police investigation. that warrants immediate such circumstances, the Fourth Arti- Amendment and require idly I, cle Section do not to stand by hopes suspicious that their observations reveal behavior before the imminent threat comes its frui- Rather, tion. it for an be reasonable officer in such potential danger a situation to conclude that the for delay justifies stop- a causеd ping in immediate action suspect any without further observation. exigency supplement Thus, can in some circumstances of an informant's in order to form investigative stop. City Indianapolis basis for an Cf. (2000) (noting Edmond, v. 121 S. Ct. exigencies outweigh likely of some scenarios would right investigative individual's free from traf- stop). fic
IV
recently
Supreme
The
27.
Court
examined
reliability spectrum
limits of the White-Adams
in Flor-
(2000).
J.L.,
In J.L.,
ida v.
The had no they anything informant. Id. Nonethe- know about the allegation tip, in the less, and information based on the stop, proceeded to locatеd a black two officers the bus independently wearing plaid shirt, and, without male a observing any suspicious behavior, initiated an investi- stop person. stop, gative a Id. As result of the carrying suspect police the a the discovered that weapon a license under concealed without and while age eighteen, violating thus Florida law. Id. at the suspect suppress later 268-69. The moved evidence gun, arguing police it as of the that the discovered a stop based an unrelia- result of unconstitutional on anonymous tip. Id. at 269. ble Supreme review, 28. the ruled that On Court at The the was unconstitutional. Id. 274. Court totally anonymous explained case that this involved tip. Thus, Id. at the in "from a unlike Adams reputation [could] known informant whose assessed be [could] [or his] responsible held if and who her alle- [have been] gations fabricated," turn out to the this case ity. the informant's verac- failed to demonstrate explained, reason, For
Id.
this
the Court
required
tip.
under White to corroborate the
Id.
were
tip,
However,
further
to corroborate a
Court
verify easily
explained,
more than
must do
identify
obtainable information that tends
sus-
they
verify
pect;
must
information that
tends to
knowledge
indicate the informant's
basis
about the
suspect's alleged illegal activity.
Hence,
Id. at 271-72.
totally anonymous tip
only
must contain
a bald
not
suspect
engaged
illegal activity
assertion that
is
(e.g.,
suspect illegally possesses
gun),
but
indicating
tipster
also verifiable
information
how
(i.e.,
alleged illegal activity
came to
know
knowledge).
272;
informant's basis
Id. at
see also
White,
case,
496 U.S.
331-32.
the Court
anonymous tip
any
noted, the
not contain
did
informa-
prediction regarding
suspect's
tion such as a
future
which,
corroborated,
if
behavior
would indicate the
*14
knowledge.
J.L.,
informant's basis
¶ Further, 29. the Court Florida's tip alleging suspect ment that the content of a possesses a that necessarily exigency a firearm entails such exception general it that warrants an to the rule that reliability. tips must exhibit indicia of Id. at 272. The "[flirearms dangerous, Court noted that extraordinary are dangers justify pre- sometimes unusual However, cautions." Id. exception it reasoned that firearms any person would create a rule under which seeking simply to harass another individual could allege possesses gun. the individual Id. The explained: "As Court we clarified when we made indi- reliability White, critical cia in Adams and easily Fourth Amendment is not so satisfied."6 Id. at 6Although adopt proposеd the Court refused to Florida's exception, carefully holding firearms it limited its to the facts of the case: require speculate The facts of this case do not us to about the danger alleged anonymous under which circumstances in an
tip might justify great showing be so as to a search even without a reliability. say, example, report person not We do for that a of a carrying reliability need bear the indicia we demand for a bomb person constitutionally carrying a firearm before can anonymous Accordingly, that the Court held 273. suspicion give conduct tip to a reasonable not rise did constitutionally stop stop was and, therefore, the Id. at 274. unreasonable. analogizes present case, Rutzinski In the stop investigative to the traffic
Officer Sardina's points Sardina, like the that Officer First, he out J.L. any independently sus- observe J.L., did not officers in like the picious he Second, contends behavior. an unidentified came from J.L., at issue here regarding predictions provided no who informant such, Officer Sardina conduct. As Rutzinski's future being presume that the informant neither could informant had that the truthful, nor could he conclude information Rutzinski was intox- whether about inside J.L., under asserts that third, And Rutzinski icated. "drunk driv- a constitutional cannot create this court ing" exception the Adams-White requirement. on the reasons, and based For these *15 holding Supreme contends J.L., in Rutzinski Cоurt's may although in have this case the informant's that investigate grounds given the situa- to Officer Sardina suspicion perhaps on a reasonable based and form tion personally observed, the did have that he facts provide for Officer itself, a reasonable basis not, in investigative stop. Therefore, Rutzinski Sardina's safety public in that officials a frisk. Nor do we hold conduct expectation quarters Fourth Amendment the reasonable where ., diminished, airports. . .and schools. . cannot privacy such as is insufficient protective on the basis ofinformation searches conduct justify elsewhere. searches omitted). (2000) (citations J.L., 266, 273-74 Florida v. 529 U.S. so, that there are circum- doing implicitly thе Court affirmed very extreme exigency supplement or, can in which stances — circumstances, Adams-White possibly supplant —the analysis. stop
claims that the violated the Fourth Amendment I, and Article Section 11. reject arguments.
¶ 31. We Rutzinski's To be independently sure, Officer did Sardina not observe any suspicious present But behavior. case involves very different set of facts than those in J.L. unlike First, in J.L., caller the inform- exposed being ant in this case him- or herself to prior police The identified. informant indicated to the to the that he or she was in the vehicle in front of pickup. Rutzinski's Officer Sardina thus could infer by revealing particular that he or that she was in a vehicle, the informant understood could identity by tracing or discover his her the vehicle's directing plates license or the vehicle to the side is, road.7 That like the officer in Adams, Officer reasonably Sardina could have concluded that potentially informant knew that he or she could be tip proved arrested if the to be fabricated.8 Accord Sierra-Hernandez, United States v. 581 F.2d (9th 1978) J.) (Kennedy, (holding by "present- Cir. ing doing [police] driving himself to the so and while identity might easily car traced, from his which pull The informant did to the side of road when Officer However, stop. Sardina initiated the Officer Sardina did not ask so, to do we informant cannot infer from the record that expected Consequently, Officer Sardina this do result. we not assessing constitutionality stop. consider fact in part 946.41 provides Section of the Wisconsin Statutes knowingly that it A give is a Class misdemeanor false infor act in doing any mation to a officer while the officer is *16 authority. capacity Similarly, official and with lawful Wis. Stat. intentionally a.penalty dialing 146.70 establishes for "911" to § report emergency knowing alleged an while that the fact situa tion exist. does not position
[unidentified] in to be informant was a held intervention"); Slater, v. for his State accountable 1999) (Kan. (holding providing 1038, 1043 and P.2d jurisdictions which cases from several hold cites for generally tips informants are that from unidentified gives enough "the information reliable when informant ascertained"). idеntity or her As that his explained this threat of arrest could lead a Adams, in to that the informant reasonable officer conclude being is truthful.
¶
J.L.,
in
Second, unlike the caller
the
33.
provided
in this case
the
with verifia-
informant
indicating his
her basis of
ble information
knowledge.
or
explained
The
that he or she was
informant
making personal
contempo-
observations Rutzinski's
Additionally,
provided
the
actions.
informant
raneous
only
description
and
of Rutzinski's vehicle
not
traveling,
in which it
also indicated
direction
but
specific
passed
the time at which Rutzinski's vehicle
progressed
Sardina,
locations as it
toward Officer
scene,
Sardina's
on the
and that Officer
Officer
arrival
many
following
pickup.
рeo-
Sardina was
a black
While
identify
ple may have been
Rutzinski's vehicle
able
general
traveling,
in
it
direction
which was
observing
only person contemporaneously
vehicle
(for
possessing
example, per-
or
"inside information"
question)
son in contact with Rutzinski at the time in
would have been
to indicate where the vehicle was
able
setting surrounding
located and
given
the vehicle
reasonably
Thus,
time.
Officer Sardina
could
inferred from
information
the informant
have
knowledge.
had a reliable basis of
J.L.,
And
third,
unlike
posed
present
suggested
case
Rutzinski
public's safety.
imminent threat
The informant
*17
alleged
driving
this
in
case
that Rutzinski was
errati-
cally.
driving
possible sign
Erratic
is one
of intoxicatеd
Swanson,
use of a motor vehicle. State v.
164 Wis. 2d
(1991).
437,
n.6,
453
such,
¶ 35. Rutzinski that Officer Sardina personally nonetheless have should waited until he signs observed that Rutzinski have been intoxi- initiating stop. cated before argument the traffic But ignores potential danger the tremendous by presented Supreme drunk drivers. As the Vermont recently explained strikingly Court in a case with a pattern fact similar to the case at hand: report posses- contrast to the of an in individual J.L. an anоnymous report ], gun sion of a [as in of an drunk presents erratic or driver on the highway a qualitatively danger, different level of and concomi- tantly greater urgency for action. In the prompt gun, case of a possession might concealed itself could, event, legal, any in surrepti- tiously a observe individual for reasonable period running of time without the risk of death or injury An every passing with officer in moment. drunk pursuit of a on a reportedly freeway driver Indeed, a a enjoy luxury. does not such drunk driver "bomb," unlike is not at all and a mobile one at that. (Vt. Boyea, 2000); v. A.2d
State 867 see also (Kan. 1994) App. P.2d Tucker, State v. Ct. ("The presented public by danger risk of great cannot drunken driver is so that we afford to anonymous impose an on strict, conditions verifiable investigatory stop can be made before tip."); Melanson, 665 A.2d response v. State to such (N.H. 1995) (considering exigency of situation 338, 340 holding driving by alleged traffic drunk created to be constitu informant unidentified based on tional); *18 (Tex. Ct. S.W.2d 343 Stolte, 991 State v. 1999) pub (considering App. "immediate threat upholding safety" drivers in drunk lic caused investigative stop in an inform on information based Michigan Dept. tip); Sitz, 496 Police v. State ant's of cf. 451-55 (1990) magnitude (holding that "the U.S. problem driving the States' interest or of the drunken rights eradicating outweighs individuals' it" in sobriety checkpoints).9 stops at traffic free from light danger potential that drunk imminent for suggesting allegations present, the informant's drivers supple- intoxicated have been that Rutzinski 9 15,786 in suffered fatalities the United States In 1999 fatality average of one traffic accidents —an alcohol-related Safety Highway Traffic thirty-three minutes. National every Safety Transp., Administration, Dept. States United Traffic (2000), available Facts These http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/nesa/pdfiAlcohol99.pdf. fatalities thirty-eight percent of all traffic comprised fatalities 308,000 Further, during "[a]n estimated year. Id. for injured in crashes where were persons [nationwide] average person one present that alcohol was reported —an every 2 minutes." Id. injured approximately as a year, were 309 fatalities Wiscоnsin The same there repre- Id. at 7. This traffic accidents. result of alcohol-related for forty-one all traffic fatalities Wisconsin percent of sents 1999. Id. tip, justified
mented the of the and further investigative stop.10 Officer Sardina's suggest ¶ 36. This is not to that we advocate a excepting tips alleging driving blanket rule drunk from reliability requirement. the Adams-White As the Supreme explained Court in J.L., the Constitution is easily merely acknowledge not so Rather, satisfied. we Supreme "extraordinary the gers Court's caveat that dan- justify precautions."
sometimes unusual J.L., 120 driving S. Ct. at 1379. Because drunk is an extraordi- nary danger, adopt position we cannot Rutzinski's allegations possible must dismiss drunk driving assessing jus- when whether an informant's stoр. allegations tifies a traffic While such cannot form investigative stop, they certainly the sole basis for an examining totality must be considered when surrounding particular police circumstances conduct. ¶ 37. For these reasons, Officer Sardina's inves- *19 tigative stop implicate of Rutzinski does not the same present police constitutional deficiencies in the action tip tip in J.L. Unlike the in J.L., the informant's in this case contained sufficient indicia of alleged potential danger public safety. imminent to substantially outweighed These factors the minimal stop presented intrusion that would have had 10 sure, only To be intoxication possible is not the cause of driving. erratic Erratic driving something can be the result of as waving innocuous as the driver at a in something bee the car or having as serious as the driver regardless a heart attack. But cause, driving very dangerous erratic can be and often is symptomatic Swanson, of intoxication. State v. 164 Wis. 2d (1991). n.6, reasons, N.W.2d For these an officer stop investigate make a traffic observations or reliable reports driving. of erratic Therefore, we intoxicated. indeed not been
Rutzinski reasonably in con- acted Sardina that Officer hold investigative stop. ducting the
V tip in this case ¶ that the sum, we hold investigative justification provided for an sufficient tip stop sufficient First, contained Rutzinski. reliability: the information informant's indicia of the possible exposed identification the informant tip proved possible false; if arrest and, therefore, to contemporaneous tip reported obser- and verifiable driving, alleged regarding erratic Rutzinski's vations description; Sardina and Officer location, and vehicle's tip. many Sec- in the informant's of the details verified suggest allegations to a could ond, the operating that Rutzinski was officer reasonable strongly exigency This his weighs while intoxicated. vehicle investigation. For immediate in favor of stop that the did not violate reasons, we conclude these I, Section and we Amendment or Article the Fourth appeals. of the court affirm the dеcision appeals By decision of the court of the Court.—The is affirmed. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF
¶ S. 39. SHIRLEY majority's (concurring). agree con- I with JUSTICE provided tip in case sufficient clusion that driving justification investigative for traffic for while intoxicated. provide tips, however, will sufficient 40. Not all
justification enforcement officers to con- to enable law majority op. investigative stop. traffic See duct an ¶ 36.
¶ 41. Case law from other states shows law adopted policies regarding tips enforcement units have driving help of drunk or erratic to ensure that resulting stops example, police traffic are lawful. For dispatchers anonymous alleging in Texas ask an caller driving pull drunk or erratic See, over at the scene. (Tex. e.g., App. Stolte, State v. S.W. 2d Ct. 1999). might Law enforcement units in Wisconsin con- adopting policies promote tips. sider