We see signs everywhere nowadays telling people to call 911 to report a drunk driver, however this can be abused in some cases and result in a violation of your constitutional rights. The following is a real case Redondo Beach DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff defended that shows how the police, prosecutors and even Judges can sometimes get it wrong. (See actual decision below)

On October 14 at around 10:48 pm a Redondo Beach Police Officer received a broadcast coming from an anonymous tip that a white female with blond hair in her 40’s, unknown clothing driving a Red Honda Accord was seen getting into her vehicle with a glass of wine. The caller said the vehicle was leaving Port Royal Marina and was last seen making a left turn onto Beryl Street, Eastbound of the Harbor. The caller, a female, “refused” to identify herself. The Officer did not know whether the tipster was calling 911 or from a non-emergency line. The officer “assumed’ the caller actually saw the blond enter the Honda with the glass of wine, but no information was given that the tipster
personally observed anything.

Armed with this information, the Officer drove towards that location and within a minute came upon a Red Honda Accord matching the caller’s description two blocks south of Beryl in the left hand turn lane to Diamond Street. He pulled in behind the vehicle and observed the driver was a female with blonde hair. The Officer immediately initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle by turning on his overhead lights. The vehicle pulled into a parking lot on the corner of Diamond and Catalina. Prior to making the stop the officer never observed anything to corroborate the tip that the driver of the Honda had a glass of wine in the car. The officer did not see anything independent of the tip that caused him to believe the driver had a glass of wine in the car. Although the officer’s perception was that the call was reporting a “possible drunk driver”, the officer saw nothing to indicate the driver of the Honda was drunk. Nor did he observe any driving in violation of the vehicle code. The Officer did not see anything criminal in relation to the Red Honda or its driver prior to initiating the traffic stop. A search of the car revealed an empty wine glass and a breath test of the driver later put her blood alcohol at nearly twice the legal limit.

The Redondo Beach City Attorney filed DUI charges against the driver, alleging violations of Vehicle Code 23152a and VC23152b.

Based on this information, Matthew filed a PC 1538.5 Motion and argued the anonymous 911 call that the driver of the red Honda possessed a glass of wine while entering her car was insufficient to justify the stop and detention in this case. Matthew filed a motion to suppress in the Torrance Superior Court which was denied. The prosecutor relied on recent United States Supreme Court decisions Navarette vs. California and State Supreme Court case of People vs Wells which allowed anonymous 911 stops of drunk drivers in limited situations. Undeterred, he appealed the denial of the motion and The Los Angeles Appellate Court, 3 Judge Panel unanimously agreed with Matthew and threw out the case.

The Court found the tip was specific enough to identify defendant and her vehicle. However, it lacked any indicia of reliability concerning the criminal activity of entering a vehicle with a glass of wine. It is important to note that the tip here did not concern an allegation that defendant was under the influence or that should had been observed drinking alcohol. Likewise, the tip did not supply any information concerning the locale where defendant was seen with the glass of wine or how the tipster knew that the liquid in the glass was wine. Stated another way, no objective information was provided to support an inference that defendant was under the influence. As such, the concern for protecting the public from drunk drivers, which was the linchpin of the decisions reached in Navarette and Wells, was not triggered.

“Investigatory stops based on anonymous tips of a person possibly driving under the influence of alcohol may be justified when the information concerning the description and location of the vehicle can be corroborated. Although there was corroboration here, there was no evidence of impaired driving upon which such an inference could be drawn. As such, defendant’s vehicle was stopped in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.”

Redondo Beach DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff got the entire case dismissed in Court. He later had a DMV hearing challenging the suspension of the client’s license, and won that hearing. If you are a lawyer and would like a copy of the official Court opinion in the case, click on the link below to get to Matt’s website where you can contact him directly to request a copy.

Many people facing driving under the influence charges ask: Is it possible to get Redondo Beach DUI charges dismissed? The answer is yes, if the facts show the officer violated your rights or the evidence is insufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you or someone you know is facing a charge of DUI in Redondo Beach or anywhere else in Southern California, Matthew can help. Matthew is a nationally recognized Top Tier Redondo Beach DUI Attorney with nearly 30 years experience fighting and winning driving under the influence cases and protecting his client’s rights against abuse of police powers by exposing unlawful arrests and illegal traffic stops.