The memorandum discusses a case involving Kenny Boy who was accused of driving under the influence based on an anonymous tip. The summary analyzes three key issues: 1) Whether the anonymous tip demonstrated sufficient indicia of reliability given the circumstances, 2) If the officer's observations of intoxication justified the arrest without a reliable tip, and 3) If the tip alone allowed the officer to obtain evidence. The summary concludes that the anonymous tip lacked indicia of reliability and did not justify stopping or searching Kenny Boy's vehicle. Therefore, any evidence obtained after the unlawful stop should be suppressed.

1. MEMORANDUM
To: N. ScottStewart
From: AndreaLet
Date: November30, 2011
Re: State v.KennyBoy
QUESTION PRESENTED
Under Washington’sindiciaof reliabilityrule,shouldthe defendant’sevidence be suppressed
basedon the officer’slackof well foundedsuspicion basedsolelyonananonymousinformant?
BRIEF ANSWER
Probablyno. Inthe case of Statev. Lesnick,the Court of Appealsdeniedthe admissionof items
intoevidence onthe countsof insufficientinformationandlackreliabilityprovenfromthe officer.This
resultstoan unlawful arrestandeverythingoccurringafterisinadmissible incourt.
FACTS
Our client,Kenny Boy,isbeingaccusedof drivingunderthe influence accordingtoan
anonymousinformant.
On Sunday,9/13/2008 at tenat nightOfficerJuniorreceivedananonymoustipthatKennyBoy
iswalkingtohiscar fromthe bar and attemptingtodrive whileintoxicated.Officerthenfindsthe
describedsuspectandcar andwhile KennyBoyisstill inthe parkinglot,Officer approachesthe vehicle.
Thenhe asksour clienttoproduce a driver’slicenseandhe observesthatKennyBoyisintoxicated.An
officerasksourclientto performfieldof sobrietytestsandhe declinestodoso.Officerthenplaces
KennyBoyunderarrestfor Physical Control.Thenhe beginstosearchthe vehicle sincethere is
suspectedmarijuana.Afterhe asksKennyBoytodo a complete search, Kennyboyagrees.AnOfficer
Iamnaughtyandcanine searchthe vehicle andtheyfindthe bodyof ShadyBrady locatedinthe trunk.
ThenOfficerJuniortakesKennyboytothe WesternPolice Stationforabreathsample.KennyBoy
deniesspeakingwithoutanattorneyandOfficerattemptstofindone butfails.
DISCUSSION
First,thismemowill addresswhetherinformant’stipdemonstratesindiciaof reliabilityinlight
of circumstancesaccordingtoestablishedrulinginprecedentcase Statev.Lesnick (1975).
Next,includediswhetherofficerhasa well foundedsuspicionof the intoxicateddriver
accordingto rulingincase Campbellv.Departmentof Licensing (1982). And third,doesthisjustifythe
officertoobtainevidence afterthe unlawful stop?
I. Doesinformant’stipdemonstrate indiciaof reliabilityinlightof the circumstances?
Informer’stipmustdemonstrate some indiciaof responsibility,withoutthisthere shouldbe no
police response orfurtherinvestigationbeforethe stop(Adams).Evenif tipsteraccuratelydescribes
subjectthisdoesnotsuffice indiciaof reliabilitytomake officer’sactionsreasonable (Whiteleyv.

2. Wardern).All situationsdifferandeachcircumstancesneedstobe approacheddependingonthe
threatit poses(State v.Lesnick). Anonymousinformantannouncedpolice withanaccurate
descriptionof suspect’sappearance andvehicle.OfficerJunioractsuponthisinformationand
descriptionprovidedandnothingmore.There wasnohighthreatposedandthe suspectwas
walkingtohiscar. Kennyboy(suspect) thenapproachedandwentinside hiscarand turnedonthe
engine.The suspectdidnotbegindrivingwhenOfficerJuniorapproachedhisvehicle for
questioning.The lightof the circumstancesdidnotoppose agreatriskand furtherinvestigationwas
needed. No,informant’stipdoesnotdemonstrate indiciaof responsibilityinlightof the present
circumstances.
II. Since there isno basisforindiciaof reliabilityfrominformant,are the officer’sobservations
that suspectisintoxicatedjustifytoalegal arrest?
Campbell v.Departmentof Licensingdescribesthatwhenusingjustinformanttipsandnoobjective
basis,the arrestand any observationsthe officermakesafterthatdoesnotconstitute alawful arrest.
Thisinvadesintocitizen’srighttoprivacywhennoobjective factsare placedforthtoindicate criminal
activity.The State doesnothave authorityto eitherrevoke adriver’slicenseforfailure totake
breathalyzerafterthe illegal arrest. Afterinformant’stipOfficergoestoKennyBoy’scar and recognizes
odor of intoxicants,andobservesbloodshoteyes,askedKennyBoytoperformsobrietytestandhe
declinedtoperformthese tests.OfficerplacedKennyboyunderarrestforPhysical Control. The arrest
was due to observationsafterthe illegal arrest.Readimpliedconsent,didmouthcheckthatKennyBoy
consentedto. No,since the arrestisinitiallyillegal due tolackof objective factsandanyotherfacts
observedbythe officerafterthe arrestisnot valid.
III. Doesthe anonymousinformant’stipsolelyallowthe officertoobtainevidence andlawfully
admissibleincourt?
Accordingto the plainviewdoctrine,itisonlyvalidwhenofficerhasthe rightto observe.Officerhasto
have the right to viewwhatisinthe car. Accordingtoconstitutional law thatanofficercannotgive
evidence of the contentsinside avehicleunlessthere hasbeensome evidence thatvehicle isusedin
commissionof acrime (State v. Lesnick).OfficerJuniordrove behindKennyBoy’scarwhile parkedbut
running,askingforidentification. There wasnoindicationof criminal activitybesidesearlier
observationsof intoxication. ThenaskedKennywhetherhe hadobjectionstocomplete searchvehicle,
Mr. Boyagreed for search.ThenOfficerJuniorcalledforcanine officerIamnaughtytosearchandfound
18 inch daggerbehindpassengerseats,andthe bodyof ShadyBrady locatedinvehicle’strunk.Officer
searchesvehicle findssuspectedmarijuanalocatedinconsoleinsmall metal tin.No,since the officer
doesnothave the rightto searchhis vehicle basedoninformant’stipanddoesnothave a rightto
observe whatisin the vehicle.Evidence isthensuppresseddue toinefficientinformationandlackof
investigation.