This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).






State of Minnesota,





Jeannine Claire Ferber,



Filed January 31, 2006

Klaphake, Judge


Stearns County District Court

File No. T0-03-9966


Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101-2134; and


Jan. F. Petersen, St. Cloud City Attorney, Mark C. Hansen, Assistant City Attorney, 400 2nd Street South, St. Cloud, MN  56301 (for respondent)


Michael L. Samuelson, 925 South 1st Street, P.O. Box 1735, St. Cloud, MN  56302-1735 (for appellant)


            Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Appellant Jeannine Claire Ferber challenges the district court’s decision denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained after her vehicle was stopped by police based on a tip by an anonymous informant.  She was convicted of fourth-degree driving under the influence of alcohol under Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 1(1), (5), 169A.27 (2002), given a 90-day sentence, which was stayed, and placed on probation for two years.

            Because the district court did not err in finding that police had a proper basis for stopping appellant’s vehicle, we affirm.


            “Wereview de novo a district court’s determination of the legality of an investigatory stop and questions of reasonable suspicion.”  Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety,703 N.W.2d 557, 559 (Minn. App. 2005); see State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn. 2005).  Where the facts are undisputed, review is also de novo.  Burbach, 706 N.W.2d at 487.

            Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may conduct a limited stop to investigate suspected criminal activity if the officer can “point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”  State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84, 87 (Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).  “An anonymous tip, if reliable, may provide the requisite reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative stop.”  State v. Pealer, 488 N.W.2d 3, 4 (Minn. App. 1992). 

            Here, we agree with the district court’s determination that the informant provided a 911 operator with facts supporting a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  The informant stated that “a big fight” between a husband and wife that “d[i]dn’t look good” was taking place in the St. Cloud Holiday Inn parking lot.  The informant provided the license plate number and general description of the car.  Within a few minutes of the call, a police officer drove to the hotel and observed a vehicle matching the description and license plate number driving out of the parking lot.  Given the nature of the information provided by the informant and the speedy corroboration of that information by police before the stop, we conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify the investigatory stop.  See, e.g., Marben v. State, 294 N.W.2d 697, 698-99 (Minn. 1980) (upholding investigatory stop where unidentified trucker within view of police vehicle reported location of car that had been tailgating him for at least 60 miles); Jobe v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 609 N.W.2d 919, 920-21 (Minn. App. 2000) (upholding investigatory stop where unidentified driver provided location, description, and license plate number of truck that had been swerving on the road).