Opinion ID: 901878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Signs of Intoxication

Text: [¶ 17.] Satter notes that neither the tipster nor the police officer observed the van driving in an erratic manner. Satter argues that there was no suggestion that the van or its occupants posed a risk to others. Therefore, he suggests [t]his tip about open containers, standing alone, does not yield a reasonable suspicion that the driver was operating the vehicle under the influence, which takes away the public policy concerns about the dangers of drunk driving. [¶ 18.] In Scholl, this Court observed: Courts have come to different conclusions as to the sufficiency of the cause for a vehicle stop based solely upon an informant's observations of the non-driving behavior of a suspect. In State v. Miller, 510 NW2d 638 (ND 1994), the North Dakota Supreme Court invalidated a traffic stop based upon an informant's report of a possible drunk driver who could barely hold his head up in the drive-up lane of a fast food restaurant. In Stewart v. State, 22 SW3d 646 (TexApp 2000), the Texas Court of Appeals invalidated a stop based upon an informant's report of an intoxicated driver at a convenience store who fell down twice while getting into his vehicle. However, in State v. Roberts, 293 Mont 476, 977 P2d 974 (1999), the Montana Supreme Court upheld the validity of a stop based upon an informant's report that two men who had been fighting got into a pickup and that the driver was drunk because he could barely walk. 2004 SD 85, ¶13, 684 NW2d at 88 (emphasis added). This Court went on to state, We perceive a distinction between observations at a fast food restaurant such as in Miller . . . or at a convenience store as in Stewart . . . and observations at a bar where the likelihood of alcohol consumption is obviously enhanced. Id. ¶14 . However, the distinctions made among these locations are not necessarily relevant to the instant case. Focusing on the type of establishment is not necessarily conclusive. [¶ 19.] Satter's argument neglects the particular behavior observed by the tipster. The tipster saw not only open containers, but also the consumption of beer from those containers. The tipster also stated that one of the occupants was purchasing more beer from this convenience store. The observed non-driving behavior was not simply sleepiness, stumbling, or a similar behavior that might be explained by any number of physical ailments. Here the tipster observed the act of drinking itself and the possibility of further consumption. [¶ 20.] To understate the point, like the bar in Scholl and unlike the convenience store in Stewart, in these circumstances the likelihood of alcohol consumption is obviously enhanced. In the totality of the circumstances, it was a simple, rational inference for the police officer to suspect that the van driver was intoxicated. [3]