State v. Sinkey

A 9-1-1 call about a possible drunk driver, by itself, is not sufficient for probable cause.

9-1-1 received a report about a possible drunk driver. The caller stated that the driver, who had two minors in the back seat, stopped at a market, was “really slow” to get out of his car, and then came out with more beer. The driver was subsequently followed by the caller, and the caller provided the name of the road and the driver’s direction of travel. After this, a sheriff's deputy determined the identity of the driver from the car registration. Deputy drove to driver’s address believing there was probable cause to arrest driver for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) and recklessly endangering another person. On the driveway in, deputy passed several signs indicating there was no entry onto the property without permission.  Upon arrival at the home of driver, deputy knocked on the door and a minor, who was later joined by driver, answered the door. Deputy’s investigation discovered evidence to support charges of (DUII) and recklessly endangering another person. Driver argued for suppression because deputy lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances. The state argued that the 9-1-1 call was sufficient for probable cause. The trial court ruled for the state. On appeal, the court of appeals held that the 9-1-1 call, alone, was not sufficient for probable cause because the call did not allow the inference that driver probably drove while impaired, instead that it was merely possible that driver was impaired while driving. The court then held there were no exigent circumstances requiring entry of driver’s property. Reversed and remanded.