PRESENT: All the Justices
JOSEPH A. MOSES HARRIS, JR.
v. Record No. 080437 OPINION BY
JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA October 31, 2008
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In this appeal, we consider whether an anonymous tip,
combined with observations by a police officer, provided the
officer with the reasonable suspicion required to conduct an
investigative traffic stop in compliance with the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr. (“Harris”) was charged with
feloniously operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in
violation of Code § 18.2-266. Harris filed a motion to
suppress in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond,
claiming that the investigative stop of his car was in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court denied the
motion to suppress and convicted Harris.
Harris appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion.
Harris v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2320-06-2 (February 5,
2008). This Court granted Harris an appeal.
FACTS
On December 31, 2005, Officer Claude M. Picard, Jr.
(“Officer Picard”), of the Richmond Police Department,
received a call from a dispatcher informing him that “there
was a[n] intoxicated driver in the 3400 block of Meadowbridge
Road, [who] was named Joseph Harris, and he was driving [a
green] Altima, headed south, towards the city, possibly
towards the south side.” The dispatcher also gave Officer
Picard a partial license plate number of “Y8066” for the green
Altima and stated that the driver was wearing a striped shirt.
The dispatcher did not include any information concerning the
identity of the person who had called in the information
communicated in the dispatch or the time frame in which the
caller had observed the car or the driver.
Officer Picard responded to the call, and shortly
thereafter, saw a green Altima traveling south on Meadowbridge
Road. Officer Picard began to follow the car. While
following the car that Harris was driving, Officer Picard
noticed that the license plate number, “YAR-8046”, was similar
to the one reported by the anonymous caller. Harris was
driving within the posted speed limit, and Officer Picard did
not observe the car swerve at any time.
While following Harris’ car, Officer Picard observed the
car’s brake lights flash three times. The first time Harris
activated the car’s brake lights was when Harris “slowed down”
at an intersection although he had the right of way. The
second time was approximately 50 feet prior to a red traffic
2
light at the intersection of Meadowbridge Road and Brookland
Park Boulevard, when Harris “slowed down” as he approached the
red traffic light. The third time the brake lights flashed
was when Harris brought the car to a complete stop for the red
traffic light at the intersection of Meadowbridge Road and
Brookland Park Boulevard.
When the traffic light turned green, Harris proceeded
through the intersection, drove his car to the side of the
road and stopped of his own accord. Officer Picard activated
his emergency lights to signify the initiation of a traffic
stop, and positioned his car behind Harris’ already stopped
car. During the traffic stop, Officer Picard detected a
strong odor of alcohol on Harris’ breath and noticed that his
eyes were watery and his speech was slurred. Harris was
charged with feloniously operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated after being previously convicted of two like
offenses.
ANALYSIS
Harris claims that he was stopped by Officer Picard in
violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the Court of
Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court’s denial of
Harris’ motion to suppress, which was based on that alleged
violation of the Fourth Amendment. Responding, the
Commonwealth asserts that the Court of Appeals properly
3
affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Harris’ motion to
suppress because the anonymous tip, coupled with Officer
Picard’s observations, provided reasonable suspicion for
Officer Picard to conduct an investigative stop.
The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy and security of
individuals against arbitrary searches and seizures by
governmental officials. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S.
523, 528 (1967); Brown v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 414, 418, 620
S.E.2d 760, 762 (2005). Although limited in purpose and
length of detention, an investigative traffic stop constitutes
a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); Jackson v.
Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666, 672, 594 S.E.2d 595, 598 (2004).
An investigative stop must be justified by a reasonable
suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that
criminal activity is “afoot.” United States v. Sokolow, 490
U.S. 1, 7 (1989); McCain v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 546, 552,
659 S.E.2d 512, 516 (2008); Jackson, 267 Va. at 672, 594
S.E.2d at 598; see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968).
Further, pursuant to the “the fruit of the poisonous tree”
doctrine, evidence seized as a result of an illegal stop is
inadmissible against the defendant at trial. Jackson, 267 Va.
at 672, 594 S.E.2d at 598; see Wong Sun v. United States, 371
U.S. 471, 484-85 (1963).
4
A defendant's claim that he was seized in violation of
the Fourth Amendment presents a mixed question of law and fact
that we review de novo on appeal. Murphy v. Commonwealth, 264
Va. 568, 573, 570 S.E.2d 836, 838 (2002); see Bolden v.
Commonwealth, 263 Va. 465, 470, 561 S.E.2d 701, 704 (2002);
McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 489, 545 S.E.2d 541, 545
(2001); see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691,
699 (1996). In making such a determination, we give deference
to the factual findings of the circuit court, but we
independently determine whether the manner in which the
evidence was obtained meets the requirements of the Fourth
Amendment. Bolden, 263 Va. at 470, 561 S.E.2d at 704; McCain,
261 Va. at 490, 545 S.E.2d at 545; Bass v. Commonwealth, 259
Va. 470, 475, 525 S.E.2d 921, 924 (2000). The defendant has
the burden to show that, considering the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trial court's denial
of his suppression motion was reversible error. Bolden, 263
Va. at 470, 561 S.E.2d at 704; McCain, 261 Va. at 490, 545
S.E.2d at 545; Fore v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 1007, 1010, 265
S.E.2d 729, 731 (1980).
Harris contends that the anonymous tip and Officer
Picard’s observations were not sufficient to create the
reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the stop of Harris’
car. Whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated is a
5
question to be determined from all the circumstances. Samson
v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006); see Ohio v.
Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996).
Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion for a Terry
stop is based on an assessment of the totality of the
circumstances, which includes “ ‘the content of information
possessed by police and its degree of reliability.’ ”
Jackson, 267 Va. at 673, 594 S.E.2d at 598-99 (quoting Alabama
v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990)). When the factual basis
for probable cause or reasonable suspicion is provided by an
anonymous informant, the informant’s veracity or reliability,
and the basis of his or her knowledge are “highly relevant”
factors in the overall totality of the circumstances analysis.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230 (1983); see White, 496
U.S. at 328-31.
The analysis regarding the use of an anonymous tip to
provide reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop was
clarified by this Court in Jackson, in which we relied upon
the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), and
White, 496 U.S. at 328-31. See Jackson, 267 Va. at 674-75,
594 S.E.2d at 599-600. An anonymous tip has a relatively low
degree of reliability, requiring more information to
sufficiently corroborate the information contained in the tip.
6
See J.L., 529 U.S. at 270; Jackson, 267 Va. at 673, 594 S.E.2d
at 599. “Unlike a tip from a known informant whose reputation
can be assessed and who can be held responsible if her
allegations turn out to be fabricated, ‘an anonymous tip alone
seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or
veracity.’ ” J.L., 529 U.S. at 270 (quoting White, 496 U.S. at
329) (citation omitted).
The indicia of reliability of an anonymous tip may be
bolstered when the tipster provides predictive information,
which the police can use to test the tipster’s basis of
knowledge and credibility. Jackson, 267 Va. at 676, 594
S.E.2d at 600. However, for such predictive information to
bolster the tipster’s basis of knowledge or credibility, the
information must relate to the alleged criminal activity.
Providing information observable or available to anyone is not
predictive information and can only “help the police correctly
identify the person whom the tipster [meant] to accuse.”
J.L., 529 U.S. at 272. An anonymous call that provides no
predictive information leaves the police without a means to
test the tipster's knowledge or credibility. J.L., 529 U.S.
at 271.
In this case, the anonymous tip included the following
information: Joseph Harris, described as wearing a striped
shirt, was intoxicated and driving a green Altima with a
7
partial license plate number of “Y8066,” southward in the 3400
block of Meadowbridge Road. The informant in this case was
not known to the police nor did he or she personally appear
before a police officer. Thus, the informant was not
subjecting himself or herself to possible arrest if the
information provided to the dispatcher proved false. See Code
§ 18.2-461. In other words, the informant was not placing his
or her credibility at risk and could "lie with impunity."
J.L., 529 U.S. at 275 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The
informant provided information available to any observer,
whether a concerned citizen, prankster, or someone with a
grudge against Harris. See Jackson, 267 Va. at 679, 594
S.E.2d at 602. The tip received by Officer Picard failed to
include predictions about Harris' future behavior. Thus, the
anonymous tip, in this case, lacked sufficient information to
demonstrate the informant's credibility and basis of
knowledge. Such an anonymous tip cannot, of itself, establish
the requisite quantum of suspicion for an investigative stop.
An anonymous tip need not include predictive information
when an informant reports readily observable criminal actions.
See Jackson, 267 Va. at 680, 594 S.E.2d at 603. However, the
crime of driving while intoxicated is not readily observable
unless the suspected driver operates his or her vehicle in
some fashion objectively indicating that the driver is
8
intoxicated; such conduct must be observed before an
investigatory stop is justified.
This Court, in Jackson, held that an investigative stop
violated the Fourth Amendment because the tip lacked indicia
of reliability and the officer’s observations did not reveal
any suspicious behavior. 267 Va. at 677-78, 681, 594 S.E.2d
at 601, 603. This case is analogous to Jackson in that under
the totality of the circumstances presented here, the
anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to
justify an investigatory stop, absent observations indicating
criminal conduct. Thus, the resolution of this case is
dependent upon whether Officer Picard’s observations, when
considered together with the anonymous tip, were sufficient to
establish a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was
afoot.
In testifying during the motion to suppress about Harris’
driving behavior, Officer Picard did not describe Harris’
driving as erratic. Furthermore, an officer’s subjective
characterization of observed conduct is not relevant to a
court’s analysis concerning whether there is a reasonable
suspicion because the Court’s review of whether there was
reasonable suspicion involves application of an objective
rather than a subjective standard. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22;
Bass, 259 Va. at 475, 525 S.E.2d at 923-24; Ewell v.
9
Commonwealth, 254 Va. 214, 217, 491 S.E.2d 721, 722 (1997);
Zimmerman v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 609, 611-12, 363 S.E.2d
708, 709 (1988); Leeth v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 335, 340, 288
S.E.2d 475, 478 (1982). Importantly, Officer Picard’s
testimony, describing what he actually observed at the time,
does not indicate that Harris’ driving behavior was erratic.
Officer Picard, while following Harris’ car, observed
that Harris was driving within the speed limit. Harris’ car
did not swerve. Officer Picard testified that Harris “slowed
down” at an intersection where Harris had the right of way and
that Harris “slowed down” 50 feet before he got to a red
traffic light, at which Harris stopped properly. After the
traffic light turned green, Harris proceeded through the
intersection, drove to the side of the road, and stopped of
his own accord. Thereafter, Officer Picard initiated the
investigative stop.
An officer may briefly detain an individual for
questioning if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based
on particularized and objective facts, that the individual is
involved in criminal activity. Zimmerman, 234 Va. at 611, 363
S.E.2d at 709. To establish reasonable suspicion, an officer
is required to articulate more than an unparticularized
suspicion or “hunch” that criminal activity is afoot. McCain,
275 Va. at 552, 659 S.E.2d at 516. Lawful conduct that the
10
officer may subjectively view as unusual is insufficient to
generate a reasonable suspicion that the individual is
involved in criminal activity. Harris v. Commonwealth, 262
Va. 407, 416-17, 551 S.E.2d 606, 611 (2001); Ewell, 254 Va. at
217, 491 S.E.2d at 722-23; Barrett v. Commonwealth, 250 Va.
243, 248, 462 S.E.2d 109, 112 (1995); Zimmerman, 234 Va. at
612, 363 S.E.2d at 709-10.
When viewed in the context of the anonymous tip, Harris’
act of slowing his car at an intersection, or of slowing
before stopping at a red traffic signal, did not indicate that
he was involved in the criminal act of operating a motor
vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Driving to the side
of the road and stopping may be subjectively viewed as
unusual, but that conduct was insufficient to corroborate the
criminal activity alleged in the anonymous tip. See Barrett,
250 Va. at 248, 462 S.E.2d at 112. Therefore, we hold that
Officer Picard’s observations, when considered together with
the anonymous tip, were not sufficient to create a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity, and that, therefore, Harris
was stopped in violation of his rights under the Fourth
Amendment. Thus, the circuit court erred in denying Harris’
motion to suppress.
11
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals affirming Harris’ conviction, vacate Harris’
conviction, and dismiss the indictment against him.
Reversed, vacated, and dismissed.
JUSTICE KINSER, with whom JUSTICE LEMONS and JUSTICE MILLETTE
join, dissenting.
The majority decides today that an investigative traffic
stop by a police officer acting on an anonymous tip
corroborated by the officer’s own observation of the
defendant’s driving behavior violated the defendant’s Fourth
Amendment rights. In my view, the majority fails to
understand that the anonymous tip in this case, if reliable,
provided the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to
justify the minimally intrusive traffic stop. So the question
is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the
anonymous tip, as corroborated, exhibited sufficient indicia
of reliability. I answer the question affirmatively and
therefore conclude the police officer had a reasonable,
articulable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in
criminal conduct.
An investigative traffic stop, such as the one at issue,
does not violate the Fourth Amendment “so long as the officer
has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity
may be afoot.” McCain v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 546, 552, 659
12
S.E.2d 512, 516 (2008) (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490
U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). As this Court has previously explained,
“[r]easonable suspicion is something ‘more than an “inchoate
and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’ ” of criminal
activity.’ ” Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666, 673, 594
S.E.2d 595, 598 (2004) (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S.
119, 124 (2000) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27
(1968))). “However, it is something less than probable
cause.” Id. (citing Bass v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 470, 475,
525 S.E.2d 921, 923 (2000)). In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S.
325, 330 (1990), the Supreme Court of the United States
explained that
[r]easonable suspicion is a less demanding standard
than probable cause not only in the sense that
reasonable suspicion can be established with
information that is different in quantity or content
than that required to establish probable cause, but
also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can
arise from information that is less reliable than
that required to show probable cause.
“[T]here are situations in which an anonymous tip,
suitably corroborated, exhibits ‘sufficient indicia of
reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the
investigatory stop.’ ” Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270
(2000) (quoting White, 496 U.S. at 327). The
constitutionality of the investigative traffic stop at issue
in this case thus turns on whether the anonymous tip,
13
corroborated by the police officer’s personal observations of
the defendant’s driving behavior, exhibited sufficient indicia
of reliability to provide reasonable, articulable suspicion to
effect the traffic stop. In making that determination, we
must consider the “totality of the circumstances – the whole
picture,” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981),
which includes “the content of information possessed by police
and its degree of reliability,” i.e. “quantity and quality.”
White, 496 U.S. at 330. “[U]nder the totality of the
circumstances the anonymous tip, as corroborated, [must
exhibit] sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the
investigatory stop.” Id. at 332.
There is an inverse relationship between an informant’s
reliability and the informant’s basis of knowledge. “[I]f a
tip has a relatively low degree of reliability, more
information will be required to establish the requisite
quantum of suspicion than would be required if the tip were
more reliable.” Id. at 330; see also Illinois v. Gates, 462
U.S. 213, 233 (1983) (“a deficiency in one [the informant’s
‘veracity’ or ‘reliability’ and his or her ‘basis of
knowledge’] may be compensated for, in determining the overall
reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or
by some other indicia of reliability”). Conversely, if a
police officer’s information contains strong indicia of an
14
informant’s veracity, then less indicia of the informant’s
basis of knowledge is needed. Id.; see also State v.
Rutzinski, 623 N.W.2d 516, 522 (Wis. 2001) (“if there are
strong indicia of the informant’s veracity, there need not
necessarily be any indicia of the informant’s basis of
knowledge”).
In the case at bar, the informant identified the
defendant by name and described the shirt he was wearing. The
informant further provided specific details about the type and
color of the vehicle the defendant was driving, a partial
license plate number, the city block in which the defendant
was then driving, and the direction he was traveling. I
recognize that some of this information only enabled the
police officer to correctly identify the person whom the
informant accused of driving while intoxicated. See J.L., 529
U.S. at 272 (an accurate description of an “observable
location and appearance” merely “help[s] the police correctly
identify the person whom the tipster mean[t] to accuse”).
The majority, however, overlooks the significance of the
informant’s statement that the defendant’s vehicle was
traveling in the 3400 block of Meadowbridge Road and was
heading south. Contrary to the majority’s assertion that the
informant provided no predictions about the defendant’s future
behavior, this information is predictive. Also, to know the
15
exact location and direction of the moving green Altima at any
moment indicates that the informant personally observed the
vehicle being operated by an intoxicated driver. See State v.
Melanson, 665 A.2d 338, 340 (N.H. 1995) (although anonymous
informant provided only “innocent” details, they nevertheless
were sufficient to support the conclusion that the informant
had personally observed a vehicle being operated by an
intoxicated driver and thus helped to demonstrate the
informant’s reliability).
Furthermore, when the police officer verified the
accuracy of the “innocent” details provided by the informant,
he had reason to believe the informant was also accurate as to
the defendant’s criminal activity. “[B]ecause an informant is
shown to be right about some things, he is probably right
about other facts that he has alleged, including the claim
that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity.”
White, 496 U.S. at 331; accord Gates, 462 U.S. at 244.
Because the majority believes (incorrectly, in my view)
that the informant in this case provided no predictions about
the defendant’s future behavior, the majority concludes the
anonymous tip “lacked sufficient information to demonstrate
the informant’s credibility and basis of knowledge.” We
explained in Jackson, however, that every anonymous tip does
not have to include predictive information in order for the
16
tip to have sufficient indicia of reliability. 267 Va. at
680, 594 S.E.2d at 603. This is especially so when an
informant reports observable criminal activity as opposed to
concealed criminal conduct. See United States v. Wheat, 278
F.3d 722, 734 (8th Cir. 2001) (“emphasis on the predictive
aspects of an anonymous tip may be less applicable to tips
purporting to describe contemporaneous, readily observable
criminal actions, as in the case of erratic driving witnessed
by another motorist”); State v. Walshire, 634 N.W.2d 625, 627
(Iowa 2001) (distinguishing between concealed criminal
activity and illegality open to the public while also noting
that reasonable suspicion does not necessarily require
prediction of future events).
Unlike with clandestine crimes such as possessory
offenses, including those involving drugs or guns,
where corroboration of the predictive elements of a
tip may be the only means of ascertaining the
informant’s basis of knowledge, in erratic driving
cases the basis of the tipster’s knowledge is likely
to be apparent. Almost always, it comes from his
eyewitness observations, and there is no need to
verify that he possesses inside information.
Wheat, 278 F.3d at 734.
In contrast to Jackson and J.L., the police officer in
this case did not immediately stop the defendant as soon as he
spotted the vehicle described by the informant. 1 Rather, the
1
In Jackson, the police responded to a dispatch based on
an anonymous tip reporting “three black males in a white Honda
17
police officer followed the green Altima and observed the
defendant’s driving, which the officer described at trial as
“erratic behavior.” 2 The defendant’s driving, as observed by
the police officer, corroborated the informant’s assertion of
criminal activity and indicated that the defendant was
operating his vehicle while intoxicated.
The majority, however, concludes that the defendant’s
driving was merely “unusual.” The defendant’s driving
behavior alone did not need to provide reasonable, articulable
suspicion. The appropriate question is whether it
. . . and one of the subjects brandished a firearm.” 267 Va.
at 670, 594 S.E.2d at 597. After merely identifying the white
Honda with the three black males inside, the police initiated
a traffic stop that led to the discovery of a firearm in
Jackson’s possession. Id. at 670-71, 594 S.E.2d at 597.
In J.L., police officers responded to an anonymous tip
“that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and
wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun.” 529 U.S. at 268.
Apart from the anonymous tip, the officers did not observe any
suspicious behavior, nor did they see the firearm. Id. The
officers nevertheless frisked the defendant and recovered a
firearm from the defendant’s pocket. Id.
2
The majority states that “during the motion to
suppress[, the officer] did not describe [the defendant’s]
driving as erratic.” The officer, however, did use the
adjective “erratic” to describe the defendant’s driving during
the Commonwealth’s case in chief. This testimony can properly
be considered by this Court on appellate review. See Murphy
v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568, 574, 570 S.E.2d 836, 839 (2002)
(considering officer’s trial testimony as dispositive in
reversing trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress
evidence); see also Wells v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 541,
548-49, 371 S.E.2d 19, 23 (1988) (holding that “an appellate
court may consider trial evidence in ruling on the correctness
of a denial of a pretrial motion to suppress”).
18
corroborated the informant’s assertion of criminal activity.
While I disagree with the majority’s view that the defendant’s
driving was merely “unusual,” even if the majority’s
characterization is accurate, the defendant’s driving
behavior, nevertheless, corroborated the informant’s assertion
that the defendant was driving while intoxicated.
Furthermore, while the case before us involves the lesser
legal standard of reasonable, articulable suspicion,
“ ‘innocent behavior’ when considered in its overall context
may [actually] ‘provide the basis for a showing of probable
cause.’ ” United States v. Thomas, 913 F.2d 1111, 1116 (4th
Cir. 1990) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 244 n.13). And,
“reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less
reliable than that required to show probable cause.” White,
496 U.S. at 330.
The majority also ignores the principle that, when
viewing the totality of the circumstances, an officer’s
training and experience are proper factors for consideration
in determining not only whether the less stringent test of
reasonable articulable suspicion is satisfied but also whether
probable cause exists. See Cost v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 246,
251, 657 S.E.2d 505, 507 (2008) (totality of the
circumstances, in determining whether an officer has
sufficient probable cause, includes “a consideration of the
19
officer’s knowledge, training and experience”); Brown v.
Commonwealth, 270 Va. 414, 420, 620 S.E.2d 760, 763 (2005)
(“We have considered a number of instances in which an
officer’s expertise and training made his observation of an
item suspected to contain contraband a significant factor in
the probable cause analysis.”); Harris v. Commonwealth, 241
Va. 146, 149, 400 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1991) (in determining
whether the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion,
“‘due weight must be given . . . to the specific reasonable
inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in
light of his experience’” (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27));
Hollis v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 874, 877, 223 S.E.2d 887, 889
(1976) (In determining whether probable cause exists, we focus
on “what the totality of the circumstances meant to police
officers trained in analyzing the observed conduct for
purposes of crime control.”). In concluding that the
defendant’s driving down Meadowbridge Road corroborated the
informant’s assertion that the defendant was driving while
intoxicated, the police officer undoubtedly drew on his
training and experience in identifying intoxicated drivers.
This Court must give due weight to that reasonable inference,
which the officer was entitled to draw from the facts in light
of his experience. See Harris, 241 Va. at 149, 400 S.E.2d at
193. In my view, the police officer’s conclusion reflects
20
what the totality of the circumstances would mean to a
reasonable police officer trained in analyzing observed
driving behavior in order to determine whether there is
reasonable suspicion that the driver is intoxicated. See
Hollis, 216 Va. at 877, 223 S.E.2d at 889.
Finally, we explained in Jackson that “ ‘[i]n contrast to
the report of an individual in possession of a gun, an
anonymous report of an erratic or drunk driver on the highway
presents a qualitatively different level of danger, and
concomitantly greater urgency for prompt action.’ ” 267 Va.
at 681, 594 S.E.2d at 603 (quoting State v. Boyea, 765 A.2d
862, 867 (Vt. 2000)); accord Rutzinski, 623 N.W.2d at 526;
Walshire, 634 N.W.2d at 629. We further stated, “ ‘[A] drunk
driver is not at all unlike a ‘bomb,’ and a mobile one at
that.’ ” Jackson, 267 Va. at 681, 594 S.E.2d at 603 (quoting
Boyea, 765 A.2d at 867). Although the majority analogizes the
case before us to Jackson, it ignores this portion of the
Jackson opinion and never addresses the distinction between an
intoxicated driver on the highway and a person carrying a
21
concealed weapon in terms of the need for prompt action by the
police. 3
For these reasons, I conclude that the anonymous tip, as
corroborated, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability and
provided reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the
investigative traffic stop. I therefore respectfully dissent
and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals of
Virginia.
3
On brief, the Commonwealth discusses at length the
decisions from other jurisdictions holding that anonymous tips
about incidents of drunk driving require less corroboration
than tips concerning matters presenting less imminent danger
to the public, see, e.g., People v. Wells, 136 P.3d 810 (Cal.
2006); People v. Shafer, 868 N.E.2d 359 (Ill. App. 2007), and
decisions holding that anonymous tips concerning drunk driving
may be sufficiently reliable to justify an investigatory stop
without independent corroboration, see, e.g., Cottrell v.
State, 971 So. 2d 735 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). In light of its
decision, the majority, in my view, should address the
Commonwealth’s argument.
22