Cited by

-91 (Minn. 1988) (holding that informant’s disclosure that they work at specific gas station enhanced their reliability).

Safety, (holding that sufficient basis existed for stop where unidentified trucker, who reported being tailgated, was in close proximity to driver); -91 (Minn. 1988) (holding that sufficient basis existed for stop where identified gas-station employee’s report of “intoxicated driver” was supported by inference that informant personally observed driver); Jobe v. Comm’r of Pub.

891 (Minn. 1988) (holding that police had “sufficient information to reasonably suspect that the driver of the car in question was intoxicated” based on a gas-station attendant’s report to police “that he had observed an intoxicated driver leave the gas station”).

Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.

Playle, d at 748 (stating an officer may rely on an informant’s statement when the informant gives enough identifying information to be held accountable for providing false information).

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 400-01 (2014); (holding that a 911 caller who identified himself as a gas station attendant at the Q Petroleum Station in Minnetonka was reliable in part because the police were able to verify his identity and holding that the police were justified in assuming that the caller described himself truthfully).

See, n.1 (Minn. 1988) (reasoning that police could have called gas station to verify caller’s employment and noting that officers subsequently identified caller); Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.

See City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd , (distinguishing between informant credibility and reliability).

See, e.g., City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd , −91 (Minn. 1988) (stating that stop was proper when based on identified gas-station attendant’s tip regarding intoxicated driver); Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.

(distinguishing Olson where the court inferred that a gas station attendant providing a tip regarding an intoxicated driver had witnessed the driver’s condu ct inside the station, thus basing his reliable tip “on personal observation of the driver himself”).

See City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd , 890 (Minn. 1988).

Tips from private citizens are presumed reliable and these tips are particularly reliabl e “when informants give information about their identity so that the police can locate them if necessary.” d 173, 178, 183 (Minn. 2007) ( 890 (Minn. 1988)).

See, (stating that a gas station attendant’s tip that a driver was intoxicated was sufficient to justify investigatory stop); Magnuson, d at 560- 61 (stating that identified citizen’s tip that a driver was drunk was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion because it was based on the infor

-91 (Minn. 1988) (analyzing both factors in light of previous caselaw).

Davis, d at 183; -90 (Minn. 1988).

Davis, d at 183; -90 (Minn. 1988).

See, (stating that a gas station attendant’s tip that a driver was intoxicated was sufficient to justify investigatory stop); Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.

See, 890 (Minn. 1988) (holding that a tip from an informant identifying himself as ‘a station attendant at the Q Petroleum Station in Minnetonka’ who had ‘observed an intoxicated driver leave the gas station’ in a vehicle he identified by color and license plate was sufficient to give police reasonable suspicion t

’s tip that a truck 6 had run her off the road had a sufficient indicia of reliability because the tip described the truck, police located the truck in the area that confirmed the caller’s timeline of events, and the caller used the 911 emergency system that permits authorities to identify and to trace the caller); (stating that a gas station attendant’s tip that a driver was intoxicated was sufficient to justify an investigatory stop); Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.

Thus, we conclude that the 911 caller was not anonymous and was reliable.1 See, n.1 1 Zabinski argues that this appeal has only “immaterial and cosmetic” differences with his appeal in his implied-consent case arising from the same incident, where a divided panel of this court concluded that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify stopping Zabinski’s truck.

See, (concluding that when a person, who identified himself as an employee of a certain gas station, reported an intoxicated driver had just left the station, and a few minutes later, an officer observed a vehicle stopped in the middle of the road, the officer had sufficient information to justify a s

(concluding that when an unnamed employee of a particular restaurant provided a tip, and police subsequently identified the employee, information as to the caller’s identity was adequate, and the case did not involve an anonymous caller); d 887, 890 (Minn. 1988) (concluding that when a person identified himself as an unnamed employee of a certain gas station, he had placed himself in a position from which he might be located and held accountable for providing false information, so that his repor

at 183 ( 890 (Minn.1988), for the proposition “that a tip from an informant identifying himself as ‘a station attendant at the Q Petroleum Station in Minnetonka’ that he had ‘observed an intoxicated driver leave the gas station’ in a vehicle he identified by color and license plate was sufficient to give police reasonabl

890 (Minn.1988) (holding that a tip from an informant identifying himself as “a station attendant at the Q Petroleum Station in Minnetonka” that he had “observed an intoxicated driver leave the gas station” in a vehicle he identified by color and license plate was sufficient to give police reasonable suspicion t

-91 (Minn.1988); Playle v. Comm’r of Pub.