received from security at paradise casino in east fury reporting an intoxicated peter who had been cut off at the casino and was getting ready to drive away independent was subsequently arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol pursuant to section eleven provide an officer may stop the vehicle to investigate possible criminal behavior where the officer can point to specific particular acts which meant taken from the reasonable inferences there from reasonably warrant such an intrusion an officer may make a traffic stop based solely on information provided by third party so long as the tip is reliable and allows a reasonable inference of criminal activity of a call in this case came from a uniquely reliable source and back to be difficult to conceive of a source more reliable source of information in this case furthermore the tip was sufficiently detailed to allow the officer to or that the suspect that he stopped was indeed from the activity in this case driving under the influence of alcohol and it other evidence in the case supports the reliability of the test the call from the dispatcher to the officer was entered into evidence and so that the details as to what the officer knew are in the wrapper is separate from his testimony furthermore the paradise thirty officers testify at the hearing as to what they observed and what they told police so there is no question in the record of what information was available to the police and that information was sufficient for the officer  security and that it is being relayed to him he positions himself at the entrance to the paradise parking lot he has a description of the vehicle and he observes that leave the parking lot so at that point a dark  information he's given the season vehicle matching that description leaving the paradise parking lot is reasonable for him to follow that vehicle and not wait and watch it drive away while he's sitting and waiting for the coffee really from paradise the dispatchers  practice well the information given to the dispatcher is a few to the officer that's not hearsay connections hearing from the dispatcher second this is not hearsay because this is not something that's being used to show the truth this is something that is used to so at the point he has this information he knows that it's a call from the paradise casino he knows with the paradise the scenery is you know is what they do you know what goes on there and this security officers are both available to testify at the hearing they testify that they are training and their training involves enforcing the state regulations on the boat and that they have a protocol the follow when a patron seem to be too intoxicated to remain in the casino and then that protocol involves asking that patron to leave informing that patron that the police will be called if they decide to drive away officer ernst's knows this this is common knowledge to not only officer and spit any law enforcement officer into as well how many officer ernst testified that he understands that when someone is cut off on the boat it means they were refused for their alcohol service and asked to leave the casino he knows this because he's familiar with the location he knows what goes on there he knows with their procedure is so when he hears this information has been cut off on the boat and is driving away from the casino on a dark wood s u v with a specific license plate number he has no reason to doubt that information and every reason to stop that vehicle and investigate the possibility that it is driving under the influence because ultimately what the issue is here and what officer was investigating is the possibility that there's a drunk driver on the streets these peoria public safety interest require an officer has this reliable and credible information and given the information he had given that it was or from a law i have a source that was credible information the rest of allowing that party simply drive away is too great to require him to simply follow and wait and see if it'll make a tra and remains that dangerous why he continues to drive that the standard for reasonable suspicion is whether the facts know when the officer reasonably warrant the intrusion of a traffic stop here we have a risk involved in allowing a suspected drunk driver to continue to drive when the officer has already has reliable information is simply an unreasonable risk you require the officers take in comparison with the minimal intrusion that is the traffic s parodic security and second for the reason stated he has no reason to doubt the information received from paradise this is not an unfamiliar call for the police to get there's not a ton of them to get these types of calls from the paradise and given what the officer knows about the source and knows about can stop to investigate information that he has from the fear that there is a drunk driver on the road no thank you and additionally the reliability of the text the information given to the officer did over a five hour hearing in both cases judge wilson took almost two weeks to make her decision in both cases and wrote out a very well articulated made decision in both cases we were granted emotions the process and actually i did both of those hearings and then the motion to quash i read from my questions from the transcript so i know the questions were exactly what took place in the motion to suppress and in that situation it's important to no from an officer who observed the defendant for less than three minutes and saw him very a sip of beer but the pain here's the important part of this the tip that came in and that the officer stated in his questioning was that his tip was two people were leaving the casino but the female had been cut off there was never a mention of of the men and mr palmer drink he not only knew the description of bicolor in the registration number but instead of waiting for that call from dispatch on a hunch he sees a vehicle that might match the description go by so he pulls out and makes a traffic stop  there was a lot of testimony as you read the transcript in this case regarding was there a traffic violation and first the officer wrote him a ticket for disobey the that that going back and looking at the transcript from march twenty third motion to reset he was trying to add things it either direct examination i asked him are you having these things now because you went back and review things ye she answers and changed and i was very specific when i started the devotion off i asked him i said do you remember testifying on march twenty third yes i did did you tell the court then in your answers everything you knew at the time you made the stop yes were you truthful yes she had all the information from then so anything he added afterwards is what the judge found not to be credible because her changed his answers so if you're looking at this reliable tip that the reliable have it's coming from an officer who didn't really observe anything except and even talk about less than three of us and then officer homer was cooperative and the complaint actually went to the officer was not and more importantly he tried to say that he observed the traffic violation but when pressed on the traffic stop itself and this is in judge wilson's ruling he admitted he can observe traffic violation the bad driving there was never any any any other complaint of any network there is nothing so the officers now just saying i can stop somebody because i have a hunch that this vehicle may match a vehicle that i'm actually waiting for but i have actual information are and it's not reliable the tip is a reliable because it's coming from an officer to a supervisor to this patch and there's never been a case like that where you have that many parties in other cases it's been this person observes something and then relays it to the office now the four criteria you have to admit here in this case just aren't met in this situation you know that you  facts and you know it's not it's not to be overruled and lessers clearly clearly something good she missed in this case just wilson was there she watched the officer trying to say he had a violation here it was discounted and the judge just watching and not only did the first hearing he tried to read up but in the second hearing and do it again and that's where judge wilson again found him not to be credible because he's trying to change his testimony when it was already locked in so great deference must be given to what judge with judge wilson witness and what his testimony was and in this issue roger i think is very clear if you just look at the what he knew he played a punch after that and that's what judge wilson talks about a mere hunch and you must look at the fact that the officer finally admitted that he observed no traffic violation there never a traffic violation that he can fuck off when he was put up to the video about what he saw so taking all that into consideration there was the result suspicion for the stop it just doesn't happen here and just wilson was very articulate in that this is not just a decision made from the bench is that i don't find she went back and research read transcripts she watched the video again so a great difference must be given to her ruling in this case and we believe that  that he went back to the paradise and found out at that time that the female had been cut off first but that bennett had also been cut off so to say that is relevant it a female had been cut off it's not relevant and it's in fact  back as far as the officers credibility of his testimony and the motion of cautious supported by the tapes of radio dispatch and the testimony of security officers it's again this ingenuous to say that is businesses had they reported the incident to their supervisor the supervisor to call police that anything in the analysis of those cases would change because ultimately what is at issue is whether the information received by the officer is reliable and well and this