County
Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW – Search and Seizure – Stop – Identifiable
restaurant employee calling police to inform them that defendant had been
drinking heavily, appeared intoxicated, and was heading towards a specific
car, provided reasonable suspicion for police to make investigatory stop of
defendant’s car when police observed defendant in actual physical control
of the specific car in the restaurant parking lot. Breeden v. State, No.
CRC 03-91 APANO (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF
THE STATE OF
LINDA BREEDEN
Appellant,
v.
Appeal No. CRC 03-91 APANO
UCN522003AP000091XXXXCR
STATE OF
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed __________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
County Judge Dorothy Vacarro
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esq.
Attorney for appellant
Broderick Taylor, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court. The defendant pleaded no contest to DUI charges, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.
The defendant claims that his motion to suppress should have been granted
because the stop of his vehicle was improper. The standard of review is de
novo.
The police received a call from an employee1 of a restaurant concerning two patrons and disorderly intoxication. The employee told the police that the two had consumed a lot of alcohol, appeared intoxicated, and were leaving the restaurant. The employee followed the two patrons out of the restaurant and reported that they were heading towards a white Chevy. The employee was concerned that they were going to immediately drive away in that condition. When the police officer arrived at the scene, he noticed the car that matched the description parked next to the restaurant. The defendant was in the driver’s seat with the engine running and the headlights on. At that point the officer positioned his car behind the defendant’s vehicle, effectuated a stop, and made contact with the defendant. The defendant was ultimately arrested for DUI.
The defendant appears to be arguing that the stop was improper because
the police failed to obtain corroborating information that the defendant had
committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. The defendant’s
argument, however, is misplaced. If the employee giving the information were
an anonymous tipster, then the defendant’s argument would have some merit.
In the case at bar though, the employee was not anonymous. The employee was
identifiable. That is, the police could easily ascertain the identity of the
tipster. The employee had given the specific address where the incident occurred
and the place of employment. The employee giving the information therefore
is considered a citizen informant. As a citizen informant the information
conveyed is considered reliable without the need for further corroboration.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at
________________________
James R. Case
Circuit Judge
_________________________
Nancy Moate Ley
Circuit Judge
_________________________
John A. Schaefer
Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esq.
Judge Vaccaro
1 The Court notes that the trial court’s order found that the manager of the restaurant had called in the tip. A review of the transcript, however, reveals that the officer identified the tipster only as an employee of the restaurant. The discrepancy is not significant because the tipster was still identifiable to the police.