Anonymous Tips

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit) and 1956 § 31-25-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle because the original basis for the stop was due to an unverified anonymous tip and the officer did not witness a traffic violation until after he followed the defendant. However, the Court held that the anonymous tip was irrelevant because the traffic stop was the result of the officer having observed the defendant leave her lane of travel in violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-15-11. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.Joan DiOrio v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-148 (April 15, 2014).pdf

Anonymous Tips

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  Defendant argued that the officer did not meet the Fourth Amendment’s reasonable suspicion standard necessary for a stop because the defendant was stopped based solely on a face-to-face anonymous tip that the defendant was drunk and had been involved in an accident without the officer corroborating any of the information before conducting the stop.  The District Court held that face-to-face anonymous tips must be evaluated for reasonable suspicion on an individual case basis and viewed in a light of the qualities of “veracity,” “basis of knowledge,” and “reliability.”  Given the totality of the circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on the information provided to him by the tipster because the tipster had a basis of knowledge, as he was connected to the incident both temporally and geographically, the tipster’s veracity was subject to the officer’s evaluation because he was able to observe the tipster’s behavior, and the tipster placed his identity at risk, which contributed to the reliability of the information.  Accordingly, the Court held that the officer’s stop of the defendant was reasonable and sustained the violation.  

Mark Kemp v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 11-0055 (September 29, 2011).pdf

Anonymous Tips

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  Defendant asserted that he was stopped in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion.  The officer admitted at trial that he did not observe the defendant commit any traffic violations or observe any indicia of intoxication before he stopped the defendant and that the sole basis for the stop was in reliance on “departmental knowledge” allegedly provided by a witness who followed the defendant and informed the dispatcher that the defendant had been in an accident, was possibly intoxicated, and provided the make, model, and license plate.  The District Court held that although the officer acted properly in stopping the defendant, the correct analysis under Fourth Amendment precedent for warrantless stops was to inquire whether the “communicating” officer possessed reasonable suspicion to instigate the stop.  Here, the Court held that the state did not meet its burden in proving that the dispatcher had reasonable suspicion to instigate the stop because the state failed to prove that the alleged telephone call by the witness was ever made.   After suggesting that the state’s failure to meet its burden was enough by itself to recommend reversal, the Court went on to note that following the line of analysis laid out in Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990), the anonymous tip failed to meet the standards of “veracity, basis of knowledge, and reliability” because the information did not have any predictive value and the police only corroborated the make, model, and license plate of the defendant.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the violation against the defendant.

Richard DiPrete v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0173 (September 29, 2011).pdf

Anonymous Tips

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). The issue in this case was whether a tip received by police provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of the defendant’s vehicle for suspicion of driving under the influence. Here, the District Court concluded that there was a sufficient basis to create reasonable suspicion to justify the stop because two anonymous callers provided information that the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence; the callers provided information such as the make, model, license plate, and direction of travel of the defendant’s vehicle, which allowed the police to identify the vehicle immediately; and the police observed the vehicle turn “kind of erratically” into the driveway of a school. The Court went on to note that there was a sense of urgency that did not allow the officers an opportunity to follow the car to make independent observations without placing the driver, or other drivers, in danger if the tip was accurate. Additionally, the intrusion of the stop was minimal, because, if the driver had not shown indicia of intoxication, then he would have been released. Consequently, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. Alan Lunsmann v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-55 (November 8, 2005).pdf

Anonymous Tips

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant because the officer corroborated the anonymous tip when he observed the defendant lose his balance on his motorcycle.  Accordingly, the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant was affirmed.

State of Rhode Island v. Laurence H. Banigan, III, A.A. No. 04-40.pdf

Anonymous Tips

The state appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel dismissing the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 3-8-9 (transportation of an alcoholic beverage by a minor). The state claimed that the Appeals Panel’s decision to suppress the officer’s testimony that a group of children informed him that the defendant had a gun, because it amounted to an anonymous tip, was in error. Here, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel erred in holding that the information provided to the officer amounted to an anonymous tip because the officer knew who was providing the information, and had also observed the informants interact with the defendant. Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer knew whether the informants were capable of providing reliable information. However, the Court went on to hold that the trial judge’s suppression was harmless error and sustained the dismissal of the violations against the defendant. State of Rhode Island v. Zachary Flanders, A.A. No. 03-134.pdf