The justices voted 5-4 Tuesday to uphold a traffic stop in northern California in which officers subsequently found marijuana in the vehicle. The officers themselves did not see any evidence of reckless driving.I suppose "tipping" could be abused, like everything else.
Justice Clarence Thomas said the tip phoned in to 911 that a Ford pickup truck had run the caller off the road was sufficiently reliable to allow for the traffic stop without violating the driver’s constitutional rights.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent in which he called Thomas’ opinion “a freedom-destroying cocktail.”
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
“a freedom-destroying cocktail”
"The Supreme Court says an anonymous tip can be sufficient to justify a decision by police to pull a car over on suspicion of reckless or drunken driving."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Tough one.
Could be a weapon used by informers.
A common occurrence on the NY Thruway is the insane driver who weaves in and out of traffic at speeds far in excess of 100 mph. Occasionally, two vehicles racing against one another are doing this.
This is an especially devastating threat to a motorcycle rider because the insane driver(s) appear out of nowhere, often when the cyclist is changing lanes.
I've stopped and called the cops on these types of drivers because they are homicidal threats.
I was contemplating "crowd sourced" traffic policing the other day. Seems like an efficient and effective way to control bad drivers. Get three reports of reckless driving, get pulled over.
Seems like an efficient and effective way to control bad drivers.
And an awesome way to fuck with people you don't like. Ex husband? Know when he commutes to work and call in 'tips' about his reckless driving. Cheating wife. Heck yeah!!! Payback baby!!!
A friend of ours got pulled over years ago in California and we're nearly certain it was on a called in tip from his neighbors.
The cop caught him on the San Rafael bridge and said he'd changed lanes without signaling.
Caught him with a back-seat full of military machine guns... er.... airsoft replicas.
Which is why we figured that a neighbor probably saw him putting them in the car and freaked out.
But we always figured that the cop sort of did have to have some other excuse like not signaling or claim he'd weaved or something, even if he hadn't actually done so.
They've got numbers here posted to try to get people to call in drunk drivers. I sort of figured that it was necessary for the cops to actually observe you themselves once they found your car.
Even though there are cases where this might stop a dangerous driver, if the cops see nothing themselves then this eviserates the 4th amendment in practice. Nobody would ever be safe from search if all it takes is an anonomous call that the cops could have someone make or even make themsleves.
It gives the state a powerful loophole to the 4th that could be used at will.
Speaking of abuse: All you have to do is slip some drugs, a gun, into a car and make a call. Ruin anyone's life you want, just like that. It's just too dangerous.
"I sort of figured that it was necessary for the cops to actually observe you themselves once they found your car."
It was until today.
What Bags said...too dangerous and hardly "probable cause" for a stop just on the basis of an anonymous call. WTF is SCOTUS thinking?
From the Courthouse News Service:
When officers found the truck, however, they observed no erratic driving after following for several miles. They nevertheless pulled over the vehicle and smelled marijuana.
Uh, how is this "never-the-less" derivative of the original claim of reckless driving by a tipster?
In the dissent, Scalia describes the logical fallacies involved:
"The court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness," Scalia wrote.
Again...in our brave new world of "rules" we now have a new one (DWH)...never mind the law per se.
CHIPs find beaners driving a truck like the one in the anonymous complaint. They follow several miles and notice nothing wrong. So, they stop anyway...on suspicion of "Driving While Hispanic" because, you know, you can't let the Spics get too uppity....and find odor evidence with their noses.
Why do I get that impression from the Courthouse News Service article?
Oh I know, DB, lots of room for abuse. Still, it might move focus from the speeder who isn't bothering anyone and put it on the dangerous asshole like ST describes.
And, by the way, I hate the ruling on search-by-anonymous-tip.
Calypso Facto said ...
I was contemplating "crowd sourced" ... policing ...
Absolutely...works well in places like the old Soviet Union, current China, and Cuba. Everyone is in a cell of three, and one must rat out the others, etc....
When SCOTUS upholds this nonsense, it become LAW. That is not good for the rest of us.
This is a tough one to side on. I'm not sure.
I guess if I was to go for it, then it would have to be a stop for that specific thing that is being told to the police. In this case, they found pot, but there wasn't a sign of wreckless driving and they still got pinched. That isn't right.
Interesting that the offenders only got 90 days for transporting 30 pounds of MJ.
when the federal police, FBI, et al, raid the 4-20 festivals I will get exercised about pot. Otherwise...it is just another law DOJ ignores. Unless its DWH or whatever some anonymous caller wants the police to do..."Crowd Policing" as Calypso Facto correctly suggested. Don't need no laws no more...just rules and rats.
Your third Long Island Iced Tea could also be considered a "freedom destroying cocktail."
BTW...what Bagoh20 said at 3:10 PM about evidence planting...that is called "flaking" and occurs too often as it is...and SCOTUS just made is easier to do.
RAbel said ...
Your third Long Island Iced Tea could also be considered a "freedom destroying cocktail."
Yes, indeed...and there are formalized tests for that, both physical and breath or blood related. None of this was found, nor administered, in the case of the non-swerving non-reckless driving truck.
This is another instance of purported "conservatives" abetting the rule by edict and opinion, law and Constitution be damned.
Quick now, tell me: Is there a law against smelling like marijuana?
The majority came down on the side of government control once again. Even Thomas.
Scalia is a gem. It must have pained him a little to take the side of the ladies.
When I first read about this I felt differently. I said why should the cops have to look the other way when they have evidence, but then I realized that there is no evidence - just a report of some. A mere witness report of evidence is enough to justify them showing up on a scene and looking for themselves, but that should be the extent of their justified action. Stopping and questioning is going beyond that.
Now if that was the case, how can DUI checkpoints be justified. There is zero evidence there.
I simply have read about and seen too much cop lying, evidence tampering, and railroading to trust them with this little trick added to the arsenal. Like many laws, this disproportionalty affect innocent people. Guilty ones don't generally require such flimsy evidence in order to supply probably cause.
Post a Comment