offenses” — not in the DUI context where the illegal activity is visible); State v. Prendergast, 103 Hawai'i 451, 83 P.3d 714, 724 (2004) (emphasizing the tip must be “firmly rooted in time and place and based on firsthand observations of criminal activity,” as well as the totality of circumstances and specific, articulable facts); Bloomingdale v. State, 842 A.2d 1212, 1213 (Del.2004) (upholding a stop when the officer did not observe any erratic driving but pulled over a driver based on an anonymous tipster who stated there was a possible drunken motorist “driving all over the roadway” between two streets; described the make, model, color, and license plate of the vehicle; and relayed the driver’s race and travel route); State v. Crawford, 275 Kan. 492, 67 P.3d 115, 119 (2003) (<HOLDING>); State v. Rutzinski, 241 Wis.2d 729, 623
holding that an anonymous tip must have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a stop and frisk holding that anonymous call that gave police no predictive information to corroborate tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to justify stop and frisk holding that an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability that an individual is carrying a gun is not enough to justify a terry stop holding an anonymous tip had the requisite indicia of reliability to justify a stop when the caller told the police of the alleged erratic driving automobile location and vehicle description holding an anonymous tip had the requisite indicia of reliability when the caller described his or her observations as reckless driving