Motion to Suppress - Anonymous Tipsters Reporting DUI/Drunk Drivers

This is Part IX of the web series dedicated to Motions to Suppress in the State of California that was previously published only to my Google+ Following; which is now available through my blog on Google Blogger.

Part IX of this series focuses on Anonymous Tipsters, which are more and more common now that we routinely see signs along the freeways prompting motorists to report "DUI or Drunk Drivers" by calling 911.

The issue of the constitutionality of a detention based on an anonymous tip to the police by an “Anonymous Tipster” has become an issue of great debate after the California State Supreme Court decision in People v. Wells and even more so after the United States' Supreme Court ruling in Navarette v. California, especially when the officer observed no signs of impaired driving.

Motion to Suppress, Motions to Suppress - Orange County DUI Lawyer

Over Labor Day Weekend in 2014 I released a web series about DUI/Sobriety Checkpoints, which covered the following subject areas relating to DUI Checkpoints:

• An Overview of DUI Checkpoints
• The Evolution of DUI Checkpoints & Roadblocks
• The Neutral Mathematical Formula Requirement
• The Time and Duration Requirements
• The Advanced Publicity Requirement
• Detentions for Avoiding a DUI Checkpoint

This year I wanted to do a web series on another important topic relating to a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Charge so I decided to write a web series about Motions-to-Suppress in Orange County, California and throughout the State of California. 

The first webpage in the web series focuses on what a motion to suppress is and how it has become one of the most effective means of obtaining a great outcome to a DUI case. It provides a broad overview of what a motion to suppress is and some of the most often used violations law enforcement officers "stop and detain" any driver to permit them to begin a DUI Investigation.

As discussed in the web series, when the question of the legality of an arrest or search and seizure is raised, the Defendant makes a prima facie case of illegality when he establishes that the arrest was made without a warrant, or that a search and seizure was made without a warrant.  Thereafter, the burden rests on the People to show proper justification, meaning, that the stop and detention were lawful and that the arrest was therefore lawful.

The issue concerns whether there is a valid justification for the stop and detention. Case law has established that in order for there to be a "valid" reason for a stop and detention, there must an "objective violation of law", specifically the California Vehicle Code. Absent such an objective violation of law, the stop and detention may be considered unlawful and thus, the motion will be granted; in which case the DUI charges will be dismissed as the prosecution would therefore be unable to proceed in light of the suppressed evidence.

This web series will cover specific law violations and the elements that are required for an objective violation of those specific law violations. For instance, not all forms of weaving are considered objective violations of CVC-21658(a) - Lane Straddling - and not all instances of failing to use a turn signal are objective violations of CVC-22107. These and many other law violations will be issued in subsequent installments of this web series.