Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court OKs Stop and Search Based On Anonymous 911 Tips
An anonymous reader writes "On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers are legally allowed to stop and search vehicles based solely on anonymous 911 tips. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority opinion, reasoned that 'a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers' as well as for recording their calls, both of which he believed gave anonymous callers enough reliability for police officers to act on their tips with reasonable suspicion against the people being reported.
The specific case before them involved an anonymous woman who called 911 to report a driver who forced her off the road. She gave the driver's license plate number and the make and model of his car as well as the location of the incident in question. Police officers later found him, pulled him over, smelled marijuana, and searched his car. They found 30 pounds of weed and subsequently arrested the driver. The driver later challenged the constitutionality of the arrest, claiming that a tip from an anonymous source was unreliable and therefore failed to meet the criteria of reasonable suspicion, which would have justified the stop and search. Five of the nine justices disagreed with him." The ruling itself (PDF).
The specific case before them involved an anonymous woman who called 911 to report a driver who forced her off the road. She gave the driver's license plate number and the make and model of his car as well as the location of the incident in question. Police officers later found him, pulled him over, smelled marijuana, and searched his car. They found 30 pounds of weed and subsequently arrested the driver. The driver later challenged the constitutionality of the arrest, claiming that a tip from an anonymous source was unreliable and therefore failed to meet the criteria of reasonable suspicion, which would have justified the stop and search. Five of the nine justices disagreed with him." The ruling itself (PDF).
I've got this hankerin' to call 911.
This law could get repealed mighty quick if it's senators and congressmen getting pulled over from anonymous tips.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I did 911 dispatching, off & on for 20 years. You know how many "anonymous" calls we received from payphones (back in the day) about someone having drugs in a car, house, or their person? Officers might keep an eye, but unless there was ANOTHER reason to stop and search, there wasn't anything LEGALLY they could do, as it should be!
If someone who doesn't like me makes an "anonymous" call to 911 to report that I'm running meth lab in my garage, does that also give the cops the right to ransack my house looking for a meth lab?
It's sad that "probable cause" has been diluted to the point that it has.
Hasn't this already been going on with "anonymous" tips from the DEA and DHS leading to traffic stops where "parallel construction" is used to fabricate grounds for probable cause after the fact? I guess this ruling removes the need to do the whole "parallel construction" thing?
The empirical evidence in this case is that the tip was indeed reliable.
In some state odor of marijuana is in itself enough to justify a search.
but we all agree that Seven of Nine is the most gorgeous...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
This way they can just call themselves anonymously and then search any car/house they like without violating any law.
I am dumbfounded and speechless. I am finding myself agreeing with Clarence "who put *that* on my coke can" Thomas! And shockingly Thomas is disagreeing with Scalia!. Who knows! Justice Thomas might actually summon up enough courage and mental faculties to frame a cogent question in the next hearing. Or the world could be coming to an end.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
> Does this seem like yet another easily fabricated excuse the police can use to search your property?
Uh... no. No search is involved or permitted solely based on an anonymous tip... just pulling someone over. This falls under the "reasonable suspicion" standard for pulling someone over. They pulled me over for "accelerating too fast out of an intersection" at about the time the bars were closing... that was reasonable suspicion that I was drinking and driving and all they needed to pull me over even though there IS no crime for "accelerating too fast".
The "reasonable suspicion" standard is MUCH lower than "probable cause" which is required for a search. They still can't search you based on an anonymous tip... just pull you over and ask you questions, which you can of course refuse to answer.
People discussing this issue would do well to bone up on the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause". People misuse the terms all the time... they are very different, and anyone who interacts with, or may interact with the police, should know what the terms mean.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Of course it is. The SCOTUS has been pro police state for years now.
1) Police officer sees car he wants to search
2) Police officer calls 911 placing an anon tip
3) Police officer gets to do whatever the hell he wants.
historically, authority figures getting to do whatever the hell they want has worked out pretty well.
Just to play devil's advocate, how is this more invasive than DUI checkpoints?
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
This is a boon to "parallel construction"
I for one don't think that the accuser should ever be anonymous when it comes to court cases, since we would have a right to face them in a court of law. I think for reporting the guy down the street who keeps violating noise or lawn ordinances is a different story. As those never really go to court.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
In a scathing dissent, fellow conservative Scalia called the Thomas opinion a "freedom-destroying cocktail" that would encourage "malevolent" tipsters to make false reports. It matters not whether the caller gave details about her alleged accident. The issue, said Scalia, is "whether what she claimed to know was true."
Is Scalia seriously suggesting police can act on a tip only after proving that tipster is telling the truth? The operative word is "reasonable" suspicion. The number of false reports to 911 is vanishingly small, and there is very reasonable to believe the tipster was telling the truth.
Just last week he suggested seriously people unsatisfied with taxes should rebel. Wonder what would happen if people who strongly believe that "the citizens united decision was unconstitutional and dilutes the franchise of American citizens, and allows foreign non citizens to set up shell corporations to influence US elections" to pursue second amendment remedies against the SCOTUS. Lucky for Scalia most progressives still believe in elections, democracy, rule of law and that SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution is the only legal interpretation.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Parallel Construction. You'll pardon me if I don't believe a single word from the mouths of our American "law enforcement" and "justice" system. Amazing that he just happened to have those 30 pounds of weed.
The question wasn't what the woman was supposed to do. The question was what the police were entitled to do.
Gotta love when Ginsbur, Kagan, and Sotomayor agree with Scalia
This. The NPR article seems misleading. They stopped him based on the 911 call. Which seems reasonable to me. If some moron is driving like a fool I'd really like to cops to stop him. The probable cause for the SEARCH was due to the marijuana smell. I don't think this ruling is a broad as it's being made out to be.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
They want your information not your name. One does not need to call crime stoppers just to report a unsolved crime but a undiscovered crime and no one is calling now to report someone who they don't like to get them in trouble for their stash.
And this is exactly what happened, more or less. The search came after they smelled something (which I suppose is easy to lie about as long as they find something).
The ruling doesn't include "search", it only OK's stopping/pulling over.
The "search" is a separate issue backed by the Plain View Doctrine.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
It likely depends upon how you define 'major crime.' Random searches are probably identifying more people transporting drugs, but aren't catching murderers, thieves, rapists, embezzlers, human traffickers, or anyone engaging in assault.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That's not what the court held. The court held that in this case, the correlation between the tip and the vehicle's location, description and direction of travel, not the tip itself, was probably cause for the stop, and that the smell of the marajuana emitted from the truck was probably cause for the search.
The 911 calls are recorded, including the position from e911. You can easily spoof the location with magicjack, but the accusation of the "anonymous" tip being from the police should be adequate for the defense to get a subpeneo to identify the caller.
Now, for your house, let me present the counter-example. Let's say your'e suspicious that your neighbor is cooking meth, and that he'll shoot you if you call the cops (the second one is a reasonable fear). Should the cops be forced to disregard your call if you decline to give your name for fear of being shot? Should undocumented immigrants be denied justice and public proection because they're concerned that using their name will lead to deportation? There are two sides to this story.
Also, notably, the dissent rests on two assertions: The anonymous tipster not necessarily being aware that they are identifiable, and that the tip was not corroborated in anyway.
This is another ruling that is based on finding something that they think would give the victim (defendant) too much power, allowing him to skirt the law, and not based on true legality.
It re-confirms that the justices are nothing more than senile elderly people who work with and for the enforcement industry and don't really care about upholding the constitution.
Citation?
And what reasonable belief did they have that the tipster was telling the truth? It's not like the cops saw the guy weaving down the road (they followed him for five minutes without observing any sign of impaired driving). Nor is there any evidence they went to the "crime scene" and saw the tipster's car in the ditch (which would have effectively made the report NON-anonymous, since they'd have had to get the tipster's personal information to fill out the police report on the accident).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yeah, and hauling it while drunk too! The issue is how this applies to false tips made by three letter agencies (DEA especially). Perhaps the man really did run someone off the road. Perhaps the DEA had a heads up but no legal means to pursue it. He drove 100% fine after the police were following him, so he was able to. He had 30lbs of bud in his car, is it not a little suspicious he was running people off the road? The so called "parallel construction" we should all be worried about. Remember, letting this guy go hurts no one. Sending him away sets a dangerous precedent.
> ...even though there IS no crime for "accelerating too fast".
There are such laws, usually prohibiting "exhibition of speed", "speed contests", and similar acts. In California, it is VEHICLE CODE 23109:
Speed Contests
23109. (a) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest.
(b) A person shall not aid or abet in any motor vehicle speed contest on any highway.
(c) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on a highway, and a person shall not aid or abet in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway. ...etc...
Bad driving *does* give reasonable suspicion of impairment, and even an anonymous report is certainly sufficient cause to stop the vehicle and briefly question the driver... which in general would amount to them just saying that they received a report about the vehicle... Since they had not personally witnessed the erratic driving, they would have had no basis to even ask him to get outside of his vehicle, but would have just questioned him through an open window, After quickly checking to see if there were any other reports about the vehicle, they would have asked the driver if they had anything to drink that evening. If the answer was no, and they had no reason to suspect the person was lying (ie, he was not visibly impaired), then they would have just let the person go.
It was only after they had stopped the vehicle and actually questioned the guy that gave them further reasonable suspicion to search his vehicle, and find that he was guilty of another crime.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Spot on sir, if I had mod points I'd +1 insightful this one. I got the same feeling reading the dissenting opinion.
Except if they didn't find marijuana, but found guns, cocaine, etc. instead, those wouldn't be admissible. This is how you are somewhat protected against trumped up probable cause (assuming you have the funds for a decent attorney, of course).
"reasonable" is a very, very difficult word for humans. They like much more the "all or nothing" concept.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
My issue in this case is assume he didn't have weed in his car, what exactly were they going to do to him? They track him down, pull him over and then what do they do? They have an anonymous call saying he forced someone off the road, but no evidence of it. They have no video, no witnesses, not even a real person willing to say they were run off the road. So they pull him over and ask him if he ran someone off the road? And when he obviously says no they just let him go? There was nothing they could do to him unless there is some other secondary issue like in this case.
I can see now a lot of anonymous tips coming in from pay phones near where cops are hanging out. They suspect someone has drugs in their car, they just make an anonymous tip about the car doing something bad and then they have a reason to pull them over.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Scalia never met a search he considers unreasonable ...
Except for this one? Did you miss that Scalia wrote the dissent while Thomas wrote the majority opinion?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
DON'T BE A DICK ON THE HIGHWAY! Drive conservatively, dress conservatively, and be completely (able to pass a blood test) sober.
Most importantly: Don't draw attention to yourself.
Who did what now?
That's not likely. It's technically possible that she does, but it's ridiculous to assume that she does. If that were the case, they'd find out soon enough as 911 calls result in the dispatcher getting quite a bit of information from the phone company.
I'm not a fan of the 3 letter agencies, but Jesus H Christ, try to keep it at least plausible.
The technicality I was speaking of was the anonymous 911 tip allowing the stop in the first place, regardless of the fact that the police witnessed no suspicion themselves when tailing him for 5 minutes.
Putting the caller id stuff in the decision left a gaping hole for the case when a tip comes from an obviously spoofed number. And there may be a case for when prosecution cannot produce either the caller id or the recording.
Of course we can have non-vetted "tips" come in to arrest people based on heresay. Can't let that pesky Constitution get in the way of the government putting it's boot on the neck of it's citizenry...
The bigger question is was this "anonymous caller" a real member of the public reporting a real crime or was it a cop laundering illegally obtained evidence.
A key principal of the US legal system is that if the cops break the law while obtaining evidence the evidence so-obtained and anything derived from it is thrown out. The idea of this is to keep the police following the law. The problem is that rather than actually follow the law the cops and spooks engage in "paralell construction" where illegal evidence is used to decide who to target but a "clean" chain of evidence is built up later to justify the arrest.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
This. The NPR article seems misleading. They stopped him based on the 911 call. Which seems reasonable to me. If some moron is driving like a fool I'd really like to cops to stop him. The probable cause for the SEARCH was due to the marijuana smell. I don't think this ruling is a broad as it's being made out to be.
Well the cops did get a tip of one reckless maneuver that allegedly forced the tipper off the road. They tailed the truck for five minutes, saw no traffic violations or poor driving to collaborate the story. Then they pulled the truck over instead of being on their way. I'd agree with the dissenters, there's no reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime - that is, drunk driving - and they pulled him over on a fishing expedition. One incident, observed by nobody but an anonymous tipper who may or may not have called it in just to be mean - I mean it's quite impressive to get a full license plate down while you're really being run off the road so some generous exaggeration may have happened. She didn't even accuse them of driving drunk, that's the court's argument that maybe they were while completely ignoring that the officers saw no sign of it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The Supreme court ruled the officer had reasonable suspicion that the drive was intoxicate and driving under the influence. The did not rule on the acceptance of the anonymous phone call or that it was acceptable against the 4th amendment. Only that a reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated can be investigated from a tipster.
That's preposterous. Scalia wrote the decision in Kyllo v. United States where use of thermal imaging was declared in violation of the 4th Amendment.
He also dissented in another 4th Amendment case, County of Riverside v. McLaughlin where the majority decision weakened protections.
No if I was going to inflict lunch choking on someone it would be Clarence Thomas.
My issue in this case is assume he didn't have weed in his car, what exactly were they going to do to him? They track him down, pull him over and then what do they do? They have an anonymous call saying he forced someone off the road, but no evidence of it. They have no video, no witnesses, not even a real person willing to say they were run off the road. So they pull him over and ask him if he ran someone off the road? And when he obviously says no they just let him go? There was nothing they could do to him unless there is some other secondary issue like in this case.
I can see now a lot of anonymous tips coming in from pay phones near where cops are hanging out. They suspect someone has drugs in their car, they just make an anonymous tip about the car doing something bad and then they have a reason to pull them over.
I would expect the officer to pull him over, make sure he's licensed and insured, and then explain that there was a complaint that he was driving recklessly. Just as I would expect the police to come and knock on my neighbor's door for if someone called and claimed they heard someone being beaten inside. They don't have to issue a citation, or search the person's property. Just the act of stopping the person can dissuade them from continuing their behavior. The moral of the story is to not drive like a total jackass when you have 30 pounds of marijuana in your car.
I'm perfectly fine with the police acting on tips from citizens. Where this becomes a problem is when the "anonymous tipster" is actually a government agent. If you allow this sort of tip to be used, it can definitely be abused by the government.
I wasn't aware there was an acceleration limit on the books.
It's called Exhibition of Speed, and there is a law against it. It's one of those great laws that has no clear definition and is up to the officer to identify.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Law enforcement (being allowed to lie) already uses the "we've had noise complaints" or "there was a X crime in the area" bullshit to harass people they have a "hunch" are up to no good. I got a (WWB) Walking While Black once at college before I knew what was up. Like a naive kid I started asking the cop about what happened and gradually realized he just made up the story as an excuse to run my ID.
Abuses are bad enough as it is. You can guarantee cops will use the anonymous tip to launch a search, then let the union and DA worry about the consequences on the rare chance a citizen gets "uppity".
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I'm sure if I followed an important public figure around for a while I could catch him rolling a stop sign or two.
It's called stalking.
If you are spotted, expect your high profile target or his warders to call for back-up.
Only if you could prove that they didn't think they smelled weed. That's pretty tough, especially since they could reasonably attribute it to something else.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If they determined he wasn't drinking or doing drugs, they'd probably let him go. My dad is a retired cop so maybe (well, probably) there is some bias on my end.. I grew up around most of the guys on the department, sure there were a couple pricks but most of them were just normal guys when off-duty. Despite popular sentiment, they aren't out there looking to ruin someone's day just to get their rocks off.
The amount of paper work that needs to be done to write a speeding ticket is prohibitive to most cops to be frivilous. Maybe they'll pull you over for going 5mph over the speed limit at 2am just to verify you're not drunk. 9 times out of 10, if you are not drunk, you go with nothing but a verbal warning.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Scalia w/ the liberal females in dissent and Breyer in the majority w/Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy? On *this* issue Breyer sides w/Thomas et al?
I don't even....
The biggest issue I see is what apparently happens with dragnet surveillance, etc.
You *aren't* allowed to convict somebody on illegally obtained evidence, with this following a certain amount down the chain. However, what does happen is that somebody gets "evidence" using illegal means, then calls in an anonymous tip saying "Bob has pot plants in his trunk", followed by Bob being busted.
When Bob goes to court, the court never hears that they the police initially heard about his plants by spying through the OnStar system without a warrant, just that he was pulled over based on an "anonymous tip"
Then since the 911 operator had the name, and entered it into the system, you get a court order for it, problem solved.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
She did give her name, it was just not entered into evidence because it was not relevant.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The problem with "reasonable" is that it's inherently subjective, which leaves lots of leeway for abuse. People don't trust leeway, and don't realize how much grief that leeway saves them from when used properly (giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused, not the accuser). Part of that is that most people don't seem to have doubt, even when they have little or no evidence backing their belief.
On the other hand, the problem with objective measures is they don't account for changes in public opinion. That which was considered reasonable a hundred years ago isn't the same as what's considered reasonable now, in both good and bad ways.
The bizarreness of Thomas' justification is pretty over-the-top. He's saying that an anonymous call creates probable cause because its not anonymous? The progression of that argument would be the government can authorize itself to search anything. A cop could just call 911, non-anonymously and even give his name, to create the tip that authorizes himself to search. Wouldn't that trigger the newly-created exception and make it legal?
Maybe there's some way that 911 calls could circumvent the 4th, but a not-really-anonymous anonymous call angle? WTF.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"reasonable" is a very, very difficult word for humans. They like much more the "all or nothing" concept.
It's not difficult for humans. It's difficult for slashdotters.
Well, I should have read the article. The call wasn't really anonymous, but it was submitted in evidence as such and has to be handled that way as far as the court case goes. I still maintain it should be thrown out on technicality.
I guess it always increases at an exponential rate.
Seriously: what is left for the citizenry to do when it is being increasingly brutalized by the fucking Supreme Court itself??
If you're gonna drive around with 30 pounds of pot AND drive aggressively you're gonna have a bad time. Might want to hold off on the aggressive driving until AFTER you deliver the drugs to the local teenagers.
always voting in more police power, yes?
One more "protect the children" decision and it will be illegal for anyone to f@uk anyone anywhere at any time.
My suggestion? Time to start flooding the 911 system with fake calls designed to ID off duty cops. This nonsense can only be stopped by demonstrating the reductio ad absurdem of ignorant pro-enforcement laws
Yeah, but to have a contest you have to have another car.
rat out teachers, cops, local elected officials, church leaders.
Its no coincidence the car had 30 pounds of marijuana in it.
The Supreme Court just condoned Parallel Reconstruction. The gist of it is that the DEA or police obtain information illegally. They then report "anonymous" tips to the police. The police then pull over the car and say "We smelled marijuana." This excuse for illegal search and seizure has already been condoned. Courts have granted police infallible senses of smell. They search the car and find the material they know is already there.
Welcome to police state USA. If someone in power doesn't like you, you can see how it goes.
So you're point is that he missed a step?
1) Police officer sees car he wants to search
2) Police officer calls 911 placing an anon tip
2.5) Police officer claims to smell marijuana
3) Police officer gets to do whatever the hell he wants.
Jesus tapdancing Christ the 4th Amendment is saved!
Congress can impeach Supreme Court justices just like they can impeach the President.
There is actually no right of an accuser to remain anonymous in the United States. The 6th Amendment gives the right of the accused to confront his/her/its accuser in open court. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." I would argue that the person who first provided "evidence" is a witness against, and must be produced by the State in open court. Of course, there is probably already SCOTUS precedent saying otherwise...
And then explain why the dashcam was shut off on the cruiser? It's a matter of record now that cops use "parallel construction" to launder illegally gained surveillance into lawful convictions.
It's not one or the other. It's another piece in a police state puzzle.
while it did some good this time, i can see this being totally abused in the following way: police cannot get a warrant to search someone or some place, so they ask a random bystander to call in a 911 tip anonymously... they then go in without a warrant (because they no longer need to)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F....
If the US Supreme Court actually expects everyone to believe the claim that precedent matter(stare decisis; though the US Supreme Court's exist precedent on quite a few issues ranges from suspect to an outright violation of individual rights.), then how does the Court reason this recent decision against decisions like J.L. v Florida? In fact, how does it rationalize tolerance of law enforcement insert itself in an individual's(or multiple individual's) private affairs, based on the claims of an anonymous source?
I myself am an ex-law enforcement officer, which I have discussed lightly in prior topics. One of the major discussions during more than a few training sessions and private discussions was the taboo of allow law enforcement to initiate a traffic stop(or any similar "detention") based off of an anonymous call to 911. One of many points of contention discussed was a law enforcement officer which was potentially looking for a reason to initiate a detention using a "burner" cellular phone, or one that isn't attached to a service provider, getting a "be on the lookout"(BOLO; a general notification, either over a general radio frequency or posted on a computer-aided dispatch system, concerning a potential issue or possible "criminal activity") notice issued(very easy and far too often a good portion of a given day's radio chatter), and using that as the basis for initiating a stop/detention.
I abhor this decision. Unless there is a verified witness, whom will swear to events he or she claims occurred, then a "BOLO" should, at best, continue to be a tool to alert officers to be vigilant of a potential problem or criminal activity. Though, the onus should continue to be on law enforcement to find probable cause(with more restrictions than exists today, given the far too lax and unconstitutional reasoning created by court fiat), based off of personal or verified third-party(sworn witness('s)) observations and statements, or other legitimate clues.
Nope; you didn't read the code: "As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device."
Probable cause is still required to initiate a traffic stop. No matter what is claimed today, "reasonable-articulable suspicion"(RAS) requires an officer personally observe acts or other behavior to initiate a "Terry Stop". RAS doesn't allow for general traffic stops; probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. At best, if a call is received an law enforcement find the vehicle which was alleged to have committed some claimed "wrong", the law enforcement would need to follow and observe the driver, witness a violation, and initiate a traffic stop.
In many states, traffic violations aren't enforceable by non-law enforcement. That is the case in the State of Georgia. That means that a citizen's arrest can't be effected in such instances. A law enforcement officer must observe a violation in order to issue a ticket, or effect an arrest. Though, instances like vehicular manslaughter, such restrictions aren't as heavy, as there is a mixing of traffic law and laws governing crimes against others(malum in se).
Again, probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. Do you even understand the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable, articulable suspicion"(RAS)? Further more, some random person making unsubstantiated claims to a law enforcement officer doesn't come close to RAS, nor probable cause. That is call hearsay, gossip, and a waste of time. If a law enforcement officer uses that to initiate a detention, it's called a "violation of right under color of law", among other serious offenses.
Fusion centers + parallel construction = police state apologists need to find a new defense for the indefensible.
IANAL.
> No search is involved or permitted
> solely based on an anonymous tip
The first sentence of TFA and TFS says "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip." I haven't read the decision myself so I could be wrong, but that's what it says here.
> an anonymous tip... falls under
> the "reasonable suspicion" standard
> for pulling someone over.
Tell me your license plate number, the make, model, and color of your car, and the city and state you're currently in, and I'll arrange for a personal demonstration of why an anonymous call should not be considered reasonable suspicion.
Do you really not see the countless ways this could be abused?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
> The first sentence of TFA and TFS says "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip."
Adorable.
> I haven't read the decision myself
Perhaps you should.
> so I could be wrong,
You are.
> but that's what it says here.
Adorable.
Allow me. From the decision
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/p...
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The tech is available and cheap Maybe you should pitch it to your local police station.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
Then TFA and TFS are wrong -- COMPLETELY wrong -- when they say "police can stop and search a driver based solely [emphasis mine] on an anonymous 911 tip", since the decision clearly says "... under the totality of the circumstances..."
My bad -- I missed the little 'decision' link below the summary. I looked for it in the NPR story and didn't see it. I'm honestly surprised that NPR got it exactly wrong.
I have no problem with using info from a 911 call as a starting point, but relying solely on a call to initiate a search, even with "some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers", is no good.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
No a lawyer, but I thought "probable cause" was that the original CAUSE for the police stop and search has to be legit. If you can't arrest the driver for "forcing someone off the road" then anything found after that wasn't supported by the search.
Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy world. I'm just not too enthused to live in a country where the "right to imprison" supersedes the right to liberty. Pot shouldn't be against the law -- but it is, because of stupidity and it means we have to buy a lot of anti depressants to compensate.
But really, society isn't breaking down because we don't have enough people in prison. A person should be a real menace to society in order to justify the government taking away their liberty. Prison is a sick, sad place. And I don't want to make this an easy process for the state.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Many police officers are quite certain of their ability to determine guilt or innocence; usually in direct relation to how much the person in front of them is pissing them off.
If it takes an "anonymous call" to make sure they get the bad guy they are 100% certain is bad -- then it's going to happen. There's already a drop bag and a drop gun for mistakes. Now there's going to be the burner phone.
Is America falling apart because we don't have enough poor people in prison or enough bankers in prison?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
No a lawyer, but I thought "probable cause" was that the original CAUSE for the police stop and search has to be legit. If you can't arrest the driver for "forcing someone off the road" then anything found after that wasn't supported by the search.
Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy world. I'm just not too enthused to live in a country where the "right to imprison" supersedes the right to liberty. Pot shouldn't be against the law -- but it is, because of stupidity and it means we have to buy a lot of anti depressants to compensate.
But really, society isn't breaking down because we don't have enough people in prison. A person should be a real menace to society in order to justify the government taking away their liberty. Prison is a sick, sad place. And I don't want to make this an easy process for the state.
The 4th amendment, as well as case law, expressly prohibits the police doing certain things during a Terry stop. They can only detain you briefly, but they only require reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. The call from the citizen counts as reasonable suspicion. It was the smell of pot that gave the officer probable cause to search. I'm not a huge fan of the outcome - strictly because the tipster could have been a government agent acting on evidence that was obtained in violation of the 4th amendment. But I do think that the police should be able to Terry stop someone after receiving a complaint of illegal or dangerous activity.