The defendant's attorney filed a motion to suppress evidence in a case where the defendant, Kenny Boy, was arrested for physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. The arrest was made based solely on an anonymous tip. The motion argues that an anonymous tip alone does not meet the standard of "indicia of reliability" required to justify stopping and detaining someone. Prior case law establishes that an anonymous tip must demonstrate reliability of the informant or be corroborated by officer observations to justify stopping someone. As the officer in this case did not observe any criminal activity or corroborate the tip before stopping the defendant, the attorney argues all evidence obtained from the stop should be suppressed as the result of an unlawful seizure.

1. Big Important Attorneys
& Associates
DEFENDANT’S 122 BW Avenue
MOTION TO SUPPRESS: EVIDENCE Central, WA 98000
T 253-555-5555 F 253-555-5556
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CENTRAL
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KENNY BOY,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 97-1-12796-2
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS: EVIDENCE
COMES NOW the defendant, by and through his counsel of record, Big
Important Attorney, and moves this court for an order of suppressing the alleged
admissions of the defendant’s evidence based upon indicia of reliability rule.
________________________

2. Big Important Attorneys
& Associates
DEFENDANT’S 122 BW Avenue
MOTION TO SUPPRESS: EVIDENCE Central, WA 98000
T 253-555-5555 F 253-555-5556
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I. Issue
Under Washington’s indicia of reliability rule, should the defendant’s evidence be
suppressed if officer’s stop is solely based on an anonymous informant that defendant
is intoxicated and attempting to drive under the influence.
II. FACTS
On Sunday, 9/13/2008 at ten at night Officer Junior received an anonymous tip
that Kenny Boy is walking to his car from the bar and attempting to drive while
intoxicated. Officer finds the described suspect and car; while Kenny Boy is still in the
parking lot, without further observations Officer approaches the vehicle asking suspect
to produce driver’s license. Officer Junior detects an odor of intoxicants. He then asks
defendant to perform field of sobriety tests and Kenny Boy declines to do so. Officer
then places Kenny Boy under arrest for Physical Control. Then he begins to search the
vehicle since there is suspected marijuana. After, he asks Kenny Boy to do a complete
search, Kenny boy agrees. Officer Iamnaughty arrives at the scene and completes the
search. Officer Junior takes Kenny boy to the Western Police Station.
III. AUTHORITY
Authority Page
Case Authority
Campbell v. Department of Licensing, 4
31 Wn. App. 833, 644 P.2d 1219 (1982).
State v. Lesnick, 3
84 Wn.2d 940, 530 P.2d 243 (1975).

3. Big Important Attorneys
& Associates
DEFENDANT’S 122 BW Avenue
MOTION TO SUPPRESS: EVIDENCE Central, WA 98000
T 253-555-5555 F 253-555-5556
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Case Authority (continued)
State v. Sieler, 3
95 Wn.2d 43, 621 P.2d 1272 (1980).
IV. ARGUMENT
A police officer must have a well founded suspicion, in order to detain a person
for investigation or questioning, based on objective facts, that the person is connected
to the potential criminal activity State v. Sieler, 95 Wn.2d 43, 621 P.2d 1272 (1980).
Informant must demonstrate “indicia of reliability,” which requires (1) reliable informant
and (2) basis of information State v. Lesnick, 84 Wn.2d 940, 530 P.2d 243 (1975).
The Washington Court of Appeals provides the following discussion on the
“indicia of reliability” principle:
It is difficult to conceive of a tip more “completely lacking in indicia of
reliability” than one provided by a completely anonymous and unidentifiable
informer, containing no more than a conclusionary assertion that a certain
individual is engaged in criminal activity. While the police may have a duty to
investigate tips which sound reasonable, absent circumstances suggesting the
informant’s reliability, or some corroborative observation which suggest either
the presence of criminal activity or that the informer’s information was obtained
in a reliable fashion, a forcible stop based solely upon such information is not
permissible.
State v. Lesnick, 84 Wn.2d 940 at 944.
In State v. Lesnick, 84 Wn.2d 940 at 944, defendant sought suppression of
evidence (punchboards and other gambling devices) as being the result of an unlawful
search of his vehicle. Court of Appeals in their decision looks at the U.S. Supreme

4. Big Important Attorneys
& Associates
DEFENDANT’S 122 BW Avenue
MOTION TO SUPPRESS: EVIDENCE Central, WA 98000
T 253-555-5555 F 253-555-5556
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Court’s authorizing from precedent case Adams v. Williams that informer’s tip must
demonstrate “indicia of reliability.”
The opinion of Adams is as follows:
Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant
no police response or require further investigation before forcible stop of a
suspect would be authorized.
Adams v. Williams in State v. Lesnick, 84 Wn.2d 940 at 944.
The issue of attempting to drive under the influence according to informant’s tip is
not presented in any cases. Although the issue of whether stop is lawful based solely on
informant’s tip stating a person is driving under the influence has been addressed in
various cases.
In Campbell v. Department of Licensing, 31 Wn. App. 833, 644 P.2d 1219
(1982), defendant was charged with driving under the influence based on informant’s
tip. There was no well founded suspicion and facts such as violation of traffic violations.
Based solely on the informant’s tip officer makes an investigative stop and finds driver is
intoxicated. The appellate court held that informant’s tip that a vehicle is driven by a
drunk driver is insufficient by itself and does not justify a stop. The petitioner’s defense
was that his arrest was illegal, therefore everything following was illegal. The
Washington appellate court reserved and dismissed the case on the illegality of the
initial arrest.
Anonymous informant announced police with an accurate description of
suspect’s appearance and vehicle. Officer Junior acts upon this information and

5. Big Important Attorneys
& Associates
DEFENDANT’S 122 BW Avenue
MOTION TO SUPPRESS: EVIDENCE Central, WA 98000
T 253-555-5555 F 253-555-5556
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
description provided and nothing more. In Lesnick’s case, a well-founded suspicion is
necessary to justify a stop. The informant’s tip alone does not justify a stop. Sieler’s
case requires that the State needed to satisfy that facts indicate reliability more than
precedent case of Lesnick. In Lesnick, the court requires that officer evaluate the
reasonableness of the seizure in light of particular circumstances. There was no high
threat posed and the suspect was walking to his car. The officer did not observe any
criminal activity before the stop. The light of the circumstances did not oppose a great
risk. Kenny boy (suspect) then approached and went inside his car and turned on the
engine. The suspect did not begin driving when Officer Junior approached his vehicle
for questioning. In the Campbell case, an informant told the officer that someone was
driving drunk. Even in that circumstance the officer needed to articulate the facts
leading to the stop or further investigate the situation. In Lesnick case, all evidence
seized after unlawful stop needs to be suppressed. Officer recognizes odor of
intoxicants, and observes bloodshot eyes after the illegal stop. Read implied consent,
did mouth check that Kenny Boy consented to. Officer searches vehicle finds suspected
marijuana located in console in small metal tin. The stop made by the officer is unlawful
in failure to prove indicia of reliability, pursuant to State v. Lesnick; this matter must be
dismissed with suppression of evidence.
V. Conclusion
The defendant respectfully requests that the evidence be suppressed due to the
state’s failure to prove indicia of reliability resulting in an unlawful stop.

6. Big Important Attorneys
& Associates
DEFENDANT’S 122 BW Avenue
MOTION TO SUPPRESS: EVIDENCE Central, WA 98000
T 253-555-5555 F 253-555-5556
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DATED at Central, Washington, this 1st day of November, 2011.
Big Important Attorneys
& Associates
Lowely Associate
Big Important Attorney, WSBA# 555
Attorneys for Defendant