ILNews

Justices rule on citizen tip in drunk driving case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a police officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop after receiving from dispatch a concerned citizen’s report of a suspected drunk driver.

In State of Indiana v. Amanda Renzulli, No. 32S04-1102-CR-117, a four-justice majority ruled that the concerned citizen tip was sufficient to support the investigatory stop that led to three failed sobriety tests and the arrest of Amanda Renzulli in Plainfield in April 2009.

A man called 911 to report that Renzulli’s car was driving erratically and possibly could hurt another motorist, and the caller told the dispatcher that the vehicle pulled into a BP gas station. He gave the dispatcher his phone number and address. Police responded and found Renzulli on the scene with visible signs of drunkenness, and she failed three field sobriety tests before being arrested. A blood draw later showed she had a blood alcohol content of 0.22 percent and she was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a class D felony because of a prior conviction from 2005. She filed a motion to suppress the evidence and the Hendricks Superior judge granted it.

Relying on its decision in Kellem v. State, 842 N.E. 2d 352 (Ind. 2006), the Supreme Court decided that it needed to look at the totality of the circumstances of each case when deciding whether a police tip provided the needed reasonably articulable suspicion of criminal activity needed for an investigatory stop. Determining that a concerned citizen tip is equivalent to an anonymous tip in the context of caselaw, the Indiana justices used a Court of Appeals decision from 2000 to hold that a citizen tip is sufficient when that person provides specific information to police allowing them to verify that person’s reliability. The cited case was Bogetti v. State, 723 N.E.2d 876, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), and the justices used that analysis when looking at how the tipster in this case provided the vehicle description and location, as well as his own information.

Justice Steven David wrote the opinion, with Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan concurring in reversing the trial court. Justice Brent Dickson concurred in result, and Justice Robert Rucker dissented in a separate position.

On the final page of the opinion, David included a footnote that says, “It may be advisable in the future for 911 operators to take further identifying information from concerned citizen tips. Information such as date of birth, home address, along with the name and telephone number of a concerned citizen would give greater reliability to these types of tips. This information would potentially place the concerned citizen under penalties of false informing and would help alleviate the concern of a possible imposter or prankster.”

Rucker found that Kellem is distinguishable, because there was little to no police corroboration in this case and the citizen reporting Renzulli’s driving identified her as a “he.” Because this was such a close call, Rucker says he would have agreed with the trial court that the responding officer didn’t establish an independent and objective basis to create reasonable suspicion needed for the stop.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT