Utah Court of Appeals
When does an anonymous tip justify a DUI traffic stop? Salt Lake City v. Street Explained
Summary
Keith Street was convicted of DUI after a police officer stopped his vehicle based on an unidentified woman’s tip that there was an intoxicated person driving with a child in Liberty Park. Street moved to suppress evidence, arguing the tip was insufficient to support reasonable suspicion, but the trial court denied the motion.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Salt Lake City v. Street, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when an anonymous tip about an intoxicated driver provides sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop. The case provides important guidance for practitioners handling DUI suppression motions involving citizen reports.
Street was stopped after an unidentified woman approached a police officer in Liberty Park and reported that there was an intoxicated person driving with a child. The woman described the vehicle and its location but did not identify herself. When the officer located the vehicle matching the description, he observed that the occupants also matched the woman’s account. Street was subsequently arrested for DUI after field sobriety tests.
The court applied the Mulcahy three-factor framework to evaluate the tip’s reliability: (1) the reliability of the informant, (2) the detail of the information, and (3) police corroboration of the tip. Importantly, the court clarified that “anonymous” and “unidentified” are not synonymous in this context. While the woman did not provide her name, she was not truly anonymous because she approached the officer face-to-face in a public setting, making herself identifiable and accountable.
The court found the woman was a reliable citizen-informant who acted out of concern for public safety rather than personal benefit. Her tip contained sufficient detail about the vehicle and location, and the officer’s discovery of the vehicle and occupants matching her description provided adequate police corroboration. The court noted that in DUI cases involving citizen reports, extensive detail is generally not required when the informant is highly reliable.
For appellate practitioners, Street demonstrates that suppression arguments should focus on the specific reliability indicators under Mulcahy rather than simply labeling a tip as “anonymous.” The decision also highlights how face-to-face encounters between citizens and officers can enhance reliability even when the citizen doesn’t provide identifying information.
Case Details
Case Name
Salt Lake City v. Street
Citation
2011 UT App 111
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100203-CA
Date Decided
April 14, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An unidentified but reliable citizen-informant’s tip about an intoxicated driver, when corroborated by the officer’s observations of the vehicle and occupants matching the tip’s description, provides reasonable suspicion to support a traffic stop.
Standard of Review
Application of law to underlying factual findings nondeferentially for correctness
Practice Tip
When challenging citizen-informant tips on appeal, focus on the specific reliability factors under Mulcahy: the informant’s reliability, the detail of information provided, and police corroboration of the tip.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.