Wendy Winborn v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-05-00716-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 12, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Wendy Winborn for driving while intoxicated (DWI) following an investigative stop initiated based on a tip from a truck driver, Jerry Hoffman. Hoffman, who identified himself and provided his contact information, reported that he had been following a vehicle since Austin that appeared to be driven by someone possibly intoxicated, as it was failing to maintain a single lane. 

Corporal Kathy Anderson, responding to the tip, located Winborn's vehicle on I-35 and observed it swerving within its lane. Although she did not witness any traffic violations initially, she activated her lights after Winborn changed lanes unsafely. After following Winborn for approximately two miles, Anderson stopped her vehicle, leading to her arrest. 

Winborn filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, arguing that the tip did not provide sufficient reliability for reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied this motion, allowing the evidence to be used against her. Winborn later pleaded nolo contendere, receiving a sentence of 180 days in prison, suspended for 18 months with community supervision and a $600 fine. 

On appeal, Winborn contended the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress, claiming the tip lacked reliability needed for reasonable suspicion required for an investigative stop. The court clarified that reasonable suspicion can be established if an officer has articulable facts indicating that unusual activity may be occurring, linking the suspect to that activity, and suggesting it relates to a crime. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that questions of reasonable suspicion are reviewed de novo and that the trial court is the sole trier of fact in suppression hearings.

In the absence of filed findings of fact, evidence must be viewed favorably towards the ruling, sustaining the decision if correct under any applicable legal theory. The reasonableness of an investigative detention is assessed based on the totality of circumstances, including the informant's veracity, reliability, and their basis for knowledge. An anonymous tip generally does not suffice for reasonable suspicion; additional reliable indicators are necessary. Texas courts have found that an informant's reliability is bolstered when they can be identified and held accountable, as seen in various cases where tips from identifiable individuals (like a tow truck driver or cab driver) justified detentions. The State argues that a phone tip from Hoffman, who provided his contact details, was reliable, while Winborn contends it was less credible due to the lack of face-to-face interaction. However, the key factor is the credibility of the information provided, which can be established without in-person communication. Credibility is inherently present when a private citizen reports witnessing a crime.

An informant's detailed account of wrongdoing, especially when it includes firsthand observation, is given significant weight in establishing probable cause. In this case, Corporal Anderson corroborated the informant Hoffman's tip regarding a suspicious vehicle by observing a vehicle matching Hoffman’s description, which was reported as possibly being driven by an intoxicated individual. Hoffman provided his name to dispatch, distinguishing him as a non-anonymous informant, and thus his information was deemed reliable. 

This situation parallels the case of Hime, where an identified informant's tip led to a justified investigatory stop, contrasting with the case of Davis, where an anonymous tip did not provide sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the combination of Hoffman's identified tip and Anderson's corroborating observations afforded reasonable suspicion to stop Winborn’s vehicle, leading to an affirmation of the lower court's decision.