In Gilmore v. State, a case out of the Court of Appeals in Texarkana, there was an anonymous tip that the defendant was traveling towards the county in a white truck, and that was found not to be sufficient to create reasonable suspicion because the route was a well-travelled corridor. In addition, "the corroborative tip merely predicted the defendant's current course of travel rather than any future itinerary"...The travel was down a well-travelled corridor, which was the usual route between Crockett and Trinity, and the tip merely predicted the defendant's current course of travel.
The Texas State Trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant for DWI, even though the trooper did not personally observe any signs of intoxication, where citizen called 911 and reported that the defendant was intoxicated, caused a disturbance at a bar, and had departed the bar in the vehicle. The information provided by the 911 caller was sufficiently corroborated by the trooper, including the vehicle's description, license plate number, and travel route. Importantly, the "trooper inquired into the reliability of the 911 caller and confirmed that the 911 caller, by giving his name and address, had put himself in a position to be held accountable for his intervention."
The Court of Fort Worth in Reed v. State, heard a case on appeal where the State's reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant for DWI based, in part, on the time of day and an area of the city that the defendant was coming from. "Here the [officer] not only testified that he had stopped the defendant because of her driving violations, but also because he had suspected that she might be intoxicated based on the time of day, the area of the city she was coming from, and his experience with intoxicated drivers exhibiting similar characteristics of driving...[T]he totality of circumstances surrounding the stop support a reasonable suspicion that Reed was driving while intoxicated.