Court Opinion

ID: 9558655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:14:51.627818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:30.041947
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting, with which KALOKATHIS, District Judge, joins.
I would affirm McChesney’s conviction in this case. Is it merely an accident of alliteration that the word “Life” precedes the word “Liberty” in the Declaration of Independence,1 or did the signatories of that historic document intend to prioritize life over liberty interests? The correct answer is that the order was intentional, and the lives of our Wyoming citizens surely weigh more on the scales of justice than the relative inconvenience of an investigatory stop of a motorist.
An appropriate refutation of the majority opinion in this case is set forth in a decision of the Court of Appeals of Oregon, where that court said:
The officer may corroborate the tip either by observing the illegal activity or by finding the person, the vehicle and the location substantially as described by the informant.
State v. Bybee, 131 Or.App. 492, 884 P.2d 906, 908 (1994) (emphasis added). In this case, the Gillette police officer quite clearly found the person, the vehicle, and the location substantially as described by the informant. When the informant describes behavior that involves violation of the state statutes, a prediction of future behavior is superfluous.
We have applied the principles of Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), in Goettl v. State, 842 P.2d 549, 554-55 (Wyo.1992), in which we said:
In prior cases, this court has recognized the validity of a “Terry stop” and also has adopted the “totality of the circumstances” test. See Keehn v. Town of Torrington, 834 P.2d 112 (Wyo.1992). In Lopez v. State, 643 P.2d 682 (Wyo.1982), a police officer’s independent observations of an automobile and a suspect driving the car which matched descriptions by eyewitnesses were held to be adequate probable cause for an investigatory stop. In Cook v. State, 631 P.2d 5 (Wyo.1981), the circumstances that occurred following a robbery, together with reasonable inferences made by an experienced police officer, furnished adequate grounds for an investigatory stop. In Parkhurst v. State, 628 P.2d 1369 (Wyo.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 899, 102 S.Ct. 402, 70 L.Ed.2d 216 (1981), the police officers were given a description of a car used by two individuals to flee from the scene of the murder, and they also were told the direction the car was traveling. The court held the officers were justified *1079in making an investigatory stop when a car fitting that description was spotted. In the course of developing our state precedent, we consistently have held that something less than probable cause will suffice for an investigatory or “Terry stop.” Simmons v. State, 712 P.2d 887 (Wyo.1986); Olson v. State, 698 P.2d 107 (Wyo.1985); Lopez; Cook. “A policeman is not required to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur merely because he lacks the necessary information required for probable cause to arrest. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). He may make an investigatory stop.” Olson, 698 P.2d at 109-10.
Examining the “totality of the circumstances” as disclosed by the record in this case, in the light of the decision in White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, we conclude that sufficient probable cause was present to justify the investigatory stop of Goettl’s car. We hold that the informant’s tip, particularly the prediction of future events, the details of which were verified by the observation of the law enforcement officers, furnished more than adequate probable cause to stop the Goettl vehicle. The subsequent events, including the consensual searches, then justified the arrest of Goettl and the others in the vehicle.
More recently we have summarized our approach to investigatory stops in this way:
We have consistently held that something less than probable cause will suffice to justify an investigatory stop. Goettl v. State, 842 P.2d 549, 554 (Wyo.1992). We will not require a police officer to “ ‘simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur merely because he lacks the necessary information required for probable cause to arrest.’ ” 842 P.2d at 555 (quoting Olson v. State, 698 P.2d 107, 109-10 (Wyo.1985)). An investigatory stop “requires only the presence of specific and articulable facts and rational inferences which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a crime.” Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 220 (Wyo.1994). The validity of such a stop depends on whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, an officer possessed sufficient information to create such a reasonable suspicion. Goettl, 842 P.2d at 554; see also Cook v. State, 631 P.2d 5, 8 (Wyo.1981). In applying the totality of the circumstances test to situations involving a confidential informant’s tip, we consider: “(1) the sufficiency of the information set forth in the informant’s tip; (2) the prediction of future activity or events by the informant; and (3) some corroboration of the current and predicted future events by the police officers.” Goettl, 842 P.2d at 554.
Frederick v. State, 981 P.2d 494, 497 (Wyo.1999). Given the totality of the circumstances in this ease, which included the description of the vehicle driven by McChes-ney; the location and direction of travel; the discovery by the officer of a vehicle matching that description; the arrival of that vehicle within a predictable time frame; and the clear statement of aberrant driving that could be perceived as reckless, the officer had sufficient reasonable suspicion to accomplish an investigatory stop.
It is right to consider the policy factors that are involved in an issue such as this. Those factors were captured plainly by the Kansas Court of Appeals in State v. Tucker, 19 Kan.App.2d 920, 878 P.2d 855, 858 (1994), when the court said:
This case involves the ever-changing equation used to balance the rights of an individual to be free from unwarranted intrusions of his or her freedom of movement and right to privacy with the right of the public to be protected from unreasonable danger. This equation and the balance change with the facts presented. It is clear that, when the focus of the stop or search is a mobile automobile, the requirements to justify a stop or search or arrest are lessened.
That court also said:
We must apply that balancing test in the instant case. A motor vehicle in the hands of a drunken driver is an instrument of death. It is deadly, it threatens the safety of the public, and that threat must be eliminated as quickly as possible. An investigatory or safety stop of a suspected drunken driver is a minimal intrusion upon *1080that driver’s freedom of movement and privacy.
Id. at 861.
A telling analogy can be drawn to the decisions of several jurisdictions that have justified brief investigatory stops in cases involving anonymous tips of suspects carrying deadly weapons. United States v. Clipper, 973 F.2d 944, 951 (D.C.Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1070, 113 S.Ct. 1025, 122 L.Ed.2d 171 (1993) (police may take into account “hazards that the illegal use of firearms presents to officer and citizens alike.”); United States v. Bold, 19 F.3d 99, 104 (2nd Cir.1994), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1250, 116 S.Ct. 2511, 135 L.Ed.2d 200 (1996) (information from anonymous informant sufficient for stop of person suspected of gun possession even though corroboration is of present rather than future events); United States v. DeBerry, 76 F.3d 884, 886 (7th Cir.1996) (“[ajrmed persons are so dangerous to the peace of the community that the police should not be forbidden to follow up a tip that a person is armed, and as a realistic matter this will require a stop in all eases.”). See generally, 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(h) (3rd ed. 1996). An automobile in the hands of a drunk or otherwise irresponsible driver is as lethal as a firearm, and, indeed, deserves the same attention from officers.
We previously have made a distinction between a citizen informant and a police informant, and have suggested that courts ordinarily deem citizen informants to be presumptively reliable sources of information. Borgwardt v. State, 946 P.2d 805, 807 (Wyo.1997). An anonymous tip does not permit verification of the honesty or reliability of the citizen informant. In the instance of a telephone call, however, the disclosure of the identity of the caller does not add substantially to the honesty or reliability of the information because the officer must react before there is any opportunity to verify the identity, honesty, or reliability of the citizen informant. If the caller is involved in a prank or a vendetta, a false name could be given, and the law enforcement personnel would have no way of determining the validity of the identity within the response time. I understand that there are occasions in which law enforcement officers may act improperly, but I have difficulty in making an assumption, not warranted on this record, that they will submit false reports to justify investigatory stops. What the officer did in this instance was corroborate by observation the caller’s description of the car, a red Mercury with temporary plates; a particular location, eastbound on 1-90 traveling towards Gillette; and its arrival within the time frame consistent with the location of the subject vehicle when the call was made. Reliability based upon identification of the informant who offers the information is not an exclusive determinant with respect to the question of reasonable suspicion. The content of the tip is a critical factor, and the level of danger that the tip alludes to is particularly important. State v. Pulley, 863 S.W.2d 29, 32 (Tenn.1993).
In Kaysville City v. Mulcahy, 943 P.2d 231 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 953 P.2d 449 (Utah 1997), the Court of Appeals of Utah was confronted with a case very similar to this case. The citizen informant had given a name to the dispatcher in Kaysville City, but the opinion does not say that the name of the informant was passed on from the dispatcher to the officer. The Utah Court of Appeals offered a very incisive analysis of such cases, but perhaps the most persuasive aspect of this opinion is this language:
[W]e supplement and clarify our analysis with pertinent principles from the numerous other states addressing facts more on point with those of this case-the overwhelming majority of which have upheld the stops involved in those cases as supported by reasonable suspicion.
Id. at 235.2 Several of the cases relied upon by the Utah Court of Appeals involved anonymous reports.
*1081Circumstances such as those found in this case demand that the danger to the public if the driver is left alone be weighed against the interest of the individual in personal liberty. Certainly the individual is concerned, and justifiably, with an “intrusion upon cherished personal security * * *." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The duty of the officer is to concern himself with protection of the public from the hazards associated with intoxicated drivers. The dangers that are associated with driving while intoxicated are well documented by the number of deaths that occur on our highways and the social concern over innocent lives that are lost each year. These factors clearly impact the State of Wyoming.
One method of analyzing reasonableness is to consider what action would be responsible under the circumstances. Any responsible parent, given the same information as this officer was given about the driving of a teenager, albeit the information was furnished anonymously, would sit down with the youngster for a discussion. That would be a responsible response by the parent. Like that parent, the officer in this case had “ ‘specific and articulable facts and rational inferences which [gave] rise to a reasonable suspicion that [McChesney] ha[d] committed or may [have been] committing a crime,’” based upon a totality of the circumstances. Frederick, 981 P.2d at 497 (quoting Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 220 (Wyo.1994)). That reasonable suspicion justified the relatively minor inconvenience suffered by McChesney in the investigatory stop, even assuming he had done nothing wrong. Clearly, the events that followed the investigatory stop furnished ample probable cause for his arrest. Effective enforcement of our laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated requires immediate response to any potential threats to the public safety.
After balancing the competing interests, I would hold that neither the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States nor the provisions of Wyo. Const, art. 1, § 4 is offended by an investigatory stop based on an anonymous report that included observations of a vehicle, its identifying characteristics, its occupants, its location and aberrant driving behavior. If the circumstances involve a threat to the lives or safety of others that is posed by someone who may be driving while intoxicated or impaired, the responsible officer must pursue an investigation. I would affirm McChesney’s conviction in this case.

. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Declaration of Independence — 1776.

. The cases cited in support of the telling statement by the Court of Appeals of Utah are:
See, e.g., Goodlataw v. State, 847 P.2d 589, 590-91 (Alaska Ct.App.1993); State v. Robles, 171 Ariz. 441, 831 P.2d 440, 441-43 (Ct.App.1992); People v. Willard, 183 Cal.App.3d Supp. 5, 228 Cal.Rptr. 895, 896-97 (Super.Ct.1986); Peterson v. Tipton, 833 P.2d 830, 831-32 (Colo.Ct.App.1992); State v. Evans, 692 So.2d 216, 218-19 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997); State v. Butler, *1081224 Ga.App. 397, 480 S.E.2d 387, 388-89 (1997); State v. Smith, 638 N.E.2d 1353, 1355-56 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); State v. Markus, 478 N.W.2d 405, 408-09 (Iowa Ct.App.1991); State v. Tucker, 19 Kan.App.2d 920, 878 P.2d 855, 862-64 (1994); State v. Sampson, 669 A.2d 1326, 1328 (Me.1996); Playle v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 439 N.W.2d 747, 748-49 (Minn.Ct.App.1989); State v. Melanson, 140 N.H. 199, 665 A.2d 338, 340-41 (1995); State ex rel. Taxation & Revenue Dep't v. Van Ruiten, 107 N.M. 536, 760 P.2d 1302, 1304-05 (Ct.App.1988); People v. Rance, 227 A.D.2d 936, 644 N.Y.S.2d 447, 447 (1996); State v. Bryl, 477 N.W.2d 814, 817 (N.D.1991); Rittman v. State, 875 P.2d 439, 441 (Okla.Ct.App.1994); State v. Perrin, 143 Or.App. 123, 923 P.2d 1249, 1251 (1996); State v. Lownes, 499 N.W.2d 896, 900 (S.D.1993); State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184, 188-89 (Tex.App.1995). But see Campbell v. State, 31 Wash.App. 833, 644 P.2d 1219, 1220-21 (1982).
Kaysville City, 943 P.2d at 235.