State v. CRAWFORD, JR.
| Decision Date | 23 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 88,250.,88,250. |
| Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. WILLIAM ALFRED CRAWFORD, JR., Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Vanessa M. Fowler, assistant district attorney, Paul J. Morrison, district attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, for appellant.
Patrick M. Lewis, deputy district defender, of Olathe, for appellee.
Before JOHNSON, P.J., LEWIS, J., and TOM MALONE, District Judge, assigned.
This is an interlocutory appeal of an order suppressing all evidence obtained as a result of an automobile stop based upon an anonymous tip. The sole issue is whether the anonymous tip concerning a reckless driver on a highway provided a sufficient basis for a sheriff's deputy to stop the defendant's vehicle.
On August 18, 2000, at approximately 1:50 p.m., Johnson County Sheriff's Deputy Mark Leiker heard a dispatch request for a Spring Hill police officer to respond to a report of a "reckless" driver in a black Dodge pickup with Oklahoma license plates traveling northbound from the county line on 169 Highway. Deputy Leiker responded to the dispatch because he was in the area and a Spring Hill police officer was not available. Deputy Leiker parked near the intersection of 207th Street and 169 Highway, approximately 1 mile north of the county line. Approximately 8 minutes later, a black Dodge Dakota pickup with Oklahoma license plates passed through the intersection traveling northbound. Traffic on the highway was light at the time. Without attempting to follow the pickup, Deputy Leiker activated his emergency equipment and stopped the vehicle. Deputy Leiker did not observe any reckless driving by the defendant prior to the stop.
The subsequent investigation leading to Crawford's arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) need not be related in detail. Crawford does not challenge the probable cause to arrest. Suffice it to say, Crawford failed his field sobriety tests, failed a preliminary breath test, and subsequently failed his Intoxilyzer breath test.
Crawford was charged with DUI, in violation of K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 8-1567. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the vehicle stop. After a hearing on the motion, the district court ruled that the stop was investigatory in nature and that the deputy lacked the required reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed.2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). The district court suppressed all evidence obtained by the police as a result of the stop and detention. The State timely appeals the ruling.
"In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of evidence, we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment." State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, Syl. s 3, 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). The facts and circumstances leading up to and including the stop in this case are not in dispute. Therefore, whether the district court properly suppressed the evidence is solely a question of law, and our standard of review is unlimited. State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 56, 891 P.2d 350 (1995).
The State asserts the anonymous tip that a black Dodge Dakota pickup truck was driving recklessly was sufficient information to justify stopping the vehicle. Crawford counters that the stop was not justified as either a valid investigatory stop or a valid public safety stop.
The traffic stop of a vehicle by a law enforcement officer is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Hopper, 260 Kan. 66, 69, 917 P.2d 872 (1996). The law recognizes two different types of traffic stops. An "investigatory stop" is permitted under K.S.A. 22-2402, which is a codification of Terry, 392 U.S. 1. The law also permits a "public safety stop," recognized in Kansas in State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 824, 840 P.2d 511 (1992). Whether a traffic stop can be supported solely by an anonymous tip is a fact-sensitive question which must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Resolution of the issue depends upon whether the stop is categorized as an investigatory stop or as a public safety stop. Therefore, our analysis will be two-fold: (1) Was the stop permitted as an investigatory stop? and (2) Was the stop permitted as a public safety stop?
K.S.A. 22-2402(1) provides authority for an investigatory stop:
"Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect's actions."
In State v. Slater, 267 Kan. 694, 700, 986 P.2d 1938 (1999), our Supreme Court identified three factors to be used in evaluating whether an anonymous tip provides a sufficient basis for an investigatory stop of a motor vehicle by police: (1) the type of tip or informant involved, (2) the detail given about the observed criminal activity, and (3) whether the police officer's personal observations corroborate the information supplied in the tip. Regarding the first factor, the court has stated that the most favored of the tips are those which are in fact not really anonymous at all. Second on the scale of reliability are those tips in which, although the informant does not identify himself or herself, the informant gives enough information that his or her identity may be ascertained. Least reliable is an anonymous tip that is truly anonymous. 267 Kan. at 700-02.
The second factor identified in Slater is whether the informant gives enough detail about the observed activity to support a stop. A tip is more reliable if it is apparent that the informant observed the details personally instead of simply relying on information from a third party. 267 Kan. at 702.
The final factor in Slater is whether the police officer's personal observations confirm the report of the informant's anonymous tip. An officer may corroborate the tip by observing illegal activity or by finding the person and vehicle and the location as substantially described by the informant. 267 Kan. at 703.
Applying the Slater test to the facts of this case, we conclude that Deputy Leiker lacked sufficient basis for an investigatory stop of Crawford's vehicle. First, the type of tip or informant involved was truly anonymous, which is the least reliable source of information. Second, Deputy Leiker was provided scant information about the observed criminal activity. He was only told that a black Dodge Dakota pickup with Oklahoma license plates was driving recklessly on 169 Highway. Deputy Leiker did not know how many people were in the truck, what the driver looked like, or what sort of behavior led to the characterization of the driving as reckless. Deputy Leiker did not even know if the informant observed the details personally or if the informant was relying on information from a third party. Finally, Deputy Leiker's personal corroboration was minimal. He did find the vehicle at the location as substantially described by the informant. However, such corroboration will exist in almost every case. Deputy Leiker observed no illegal activity or any other type of behavior by Crawford to corroborate the anonymous tip of reckless driving.
Deputy Leiker lacked the required reasonable suspicion to stop Crawford pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2402. The district court did not err in suppressing the evidence on the basis of an invalid investigatory stop.
We must next consider whether the stop was a valid public safety stop. (Emphasis added.) Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, Syl. s 1. Vistuba involves a safety stop of a vehicle based upon an officer's personal observations of erratic driving.
In State v. Tucker, 19 Kan. App.2d 920, 878 P.2d 855,rev. denied 255 Kan. 1007 (1994), this court took Vistuba a step further and held that an anonymous tip may justify a safety stop of a vehicle. In Tucker, the police received an anonymous tip that a white male was driving a red 1960's model Ford pickup southbound on K-61 Highway from Inman and that the driver appeared to be drunk and running vehicles off the road. Two officers located the pickup, and the description of the vehicle and the driver matched the anonymous tip. The officers did not see any erratic driving. However, the morning traffic on K-61 Highway was heavy. One of the officers testified that he pulled the vehicle over in the interest of public safety since the report indicated a potentially drunk person was running cars off the road.
Tucker argued on appeal that the safety stop of his vehicle was not supported by "specific and articulable facts." 19 Kan. App.2d at 922. The court upheld the stop and stated that "an anonymous tip may provide sufficient indications of reliability to support police action." 19 Kan. App.2d at 928. The court noted that whether an anonymous tip has provided sufficient facts to justify a safety stop of a motor vehicle by police must be determined from the totality of circumstances shown by the evidence. 19 Kan. App.2d at 928. The court concluded under the facts of the case that the danger to the public was clear, urgent, and immediate, which justified the vehicle stop. 19 Kan. App.2d at 931. In doing so, this court issued a strong warning:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickelson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue
...afforded a motorist's privacy under Terry." State v. Ludes, 27 Kan. App. 2d 1030, 1035, 11 P.3d 72 (2000); see State v. Crawford, 30 Kan. App. 2d 977, 984, 52 P.3d 353 (2002),rev'd on other grounds275 Kan. 492, 67 P.3d 115 Nickelson cites State v. Morris, 276 Kan. 11, 72 P.3d 570 (2003), in......