Login | April 05, 2026
9th District: Citizen’s tip led to officer’s reasonable stop in OVI case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: July 1, 2022
After a drunk driving defendant argued an officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle, a Medina Municipal Court acting judge granted her motion to suppress.
On appeal, the state alleged the trial court applied an improper standard to evaluate whether information from an identified citizen informant gave rise to a reasonable suspicion for Allison Tincher’s traffic stop.
The 9th District Court of Appeals recently sustained the state’s sole assignment of error.
Shortly before 10 p.m. one Friday night, E.F. – who identified herself as a “DoorDasher” - called 911 to report a possible drunk driver who was “stumbling all over the place” had just exited a bar and was driving away in her car. E.F. gave the dispatcher the name and location of the bar, the license plate of the woman’s car, the road on which the car was traveling, and the direction the car was heading.
Almost immediately after she ended her call with the dispatcher, E.F. called 911 again to report that the car had entered a Taco Bell.
The dispatcher was unaware that E.F. did not personally observe the woman she called 911 to report. E.F.’s boyfriend saw the woman’s alleged actions while he and E.F. were talking on their cell phones. E.F. ended her call with her boyfriend so that she could call 911.
Responding Officer Erica Anderson stopped Tincher based on E.F.’s tip. Tincher was charged with one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
The state alleged the tip the police received from E.F., when combined with the totality of the circumstances, provided Anderson with reasonable suspicion to execute a traffic stop.
The state argued the trial court neglected to apply the Ohio Supreme Court’s most recent decision on the issue, State v. Tidwell, which held that a court must consider “the totality of the circumstances as they were known to (the police) prior to the time (the police) stopped (the defendant], together with reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the circumstances, keeping in mind that each piece of information may vary greatly in its value and degree of reliability.”
The appellate court agreed.
“The trial court determined that E.F. qualified as an identified citizen informant because she identified herself to the dispatcher and the dispatcher conveyed her information to Officer Anderson,” appellate Judge Jennifer Hensal said in her opinion. “Nevertheless, the court was troubled by the fact that E.F. had not personally observed the events she described. It found her tip less reliable because she had received information second-hand from her boyfriend before relaying it to the dispatcher. The court also noted that E.F.’s tip did not concern any erratic driving. She only reported that the driver had stumbled in the parking lot; a fact that, in the trial court’s opinion, also detracted from the weight to be given her tip.”
Citing State v. Maumee (87 Ohio St.3d at 300), the appellate panel noted however that tips received from identified citizen informants are usually considered “highly reliable” without “a strong showing as to other indicia of reliability.”
In addition, the trial court failed to take into account several other factors lending credence to the weight and reliability of E.F.’s tip, Judge Hensal stated.
“… E.F. made no attempt to block her number or hide her identity from the dispatcher,” Judge Hensal noted. “Each time she called, the dispatcher observed her name and phone number on the system’s ‘call screen.’ Moreover, before stopping Ms. Tincher, Officer Anderson verified with the dispatcher that she had obtained E.F.’s contact information.”
The record also supports the conclusion that, in reporting Tincher, E.F. was motivated solely by a desire to eliminate a risk to the public’s safety, Judge Hensal added.
“The totality of the circumstances, together with reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom, support the conclusion that Officer Anderson was justified in conducting an investigatory traffic stop to confirm or dispel the suspicion that Ms. Tincher was driving while intoxicated,” Judge Hensal said. “Both the 911 dispatcher and Officer Anderson were aware of E.F.’s identity, making her tip more reliable.”
Appellate judges Donna J. Carr and Thomas Teodosio concurred. The case is cited State v. Tincher, 2022-Ohio-1701.