Supreme Court Gives Police New Power To Rely On Anonymous Tips

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
04/23/2014 at 12:42 • Filed to: None

In yet another 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court gave police the power to stop any driver suspected of impaired driving, or any other offense, presumably, based solely on information provided by an anonymous tipster. What could possibly go wrong?

The ruling stems from a case in California, Navarette v. California , where a woman called 911 to report that she had been run off the road by a pickup truck. She provided the police with a description of the truck, and a license plate number. Police located the truck, and followed it for five minutes, never witnessing any signs that the driver was impaired. After initiating the stop based solely on the information provided by the tipster, they found a large amount of marijuana in the truck. The driver was arrested for possession of marijuana, but not impaired driving. The defendant sought to suppress the evidence of the marijuana, arguing that the officer had no reason to stop the vehicle, so any evidence gathered should be inadmissible.

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, said that the information provided by the tipster was sufficiently reliable for police to act on it and stop the driver, saying that, in the California case, "the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated."

Justice Scalia, writing for the minority, was scathing in his opinion of the ruling. "The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail .... All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police .... [This] is not my concept, and I am sure it would not be the Framers', of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

Ruling in the majority with Justice Thomas were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer, who normally sides with the Court's more liberal bloc. Dissenting with Justice Scalia were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, three of the traditionally liberal Justices.

For those who would like to know more about this case, there is a helpful analysis at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The opinion can be read !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . (H/T to benchslap for the links)

I would add, that if I find myself agreeing with Antonin Scalia, it must be a fucked up ruling.

DISCUSSION (24)

benchslap > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:45

What's the name of the case?

Gamecat235 > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:45

Holy shit. Well, there goes freedom.

May as well just give up now.

ttyymmnn > benchslap
04/23/2014 at 12:47

Navarette v. California. I forgot to add that. Thanks for pointing it out.

benchslap > benchslap
04/23/2014 at 12:47

Nevermind, I found it. Navarette v. California: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…

oldirtybootz > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:49

Kinja'd!!!

Oh sure now you do this shit. Suck my dick supreme court/police. Last year when I almost got ran off the road by this Solara, I got his plate and called the cops rather that folowing him and throwing a brick through his fucking window like I wanted to. They told me they couldn't do anything because they didn't witness it and too much time had passed between the incident and when I called(because you can make it from Eastern Long Island to off the Island in 15 minutes I guess). Karma got the cock sucker eventually, I randomly saw it like this on the side of the road one morning, but he deserved to get pulled over at the very least.

Dusty Ventures > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:50

*State highway 376, Nevada desert, 2 AM. Cop pulls over a motorist*

Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Driver: No, officer

Officer: I got an anonymous tip you were swerving and might be intoxicated

Driver: *blinks* Seriously?

Officer: Have you had anything to drink tonight?

Driver: No... *looks up and down the road* I also know I haven't seen another car in about four hours

Officer: Step out of the vehicle, sir.

benchslap > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:51

For those who want to know more, here's a helpful analysis from SCOTUSBlog http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/opinio… and here's the opinion: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf

Leadbull > Gamecat235
04/23/2014 at 12:52

Freedom was sold to a young Jewish man at a random McDonald's.

ttyymmnn > benchslap
04/23/2014 at 12:52

Thanks. I will add this to the OP, if you don't mind.

PS9 > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:55

"Hello, 911? Yeah, there' this life size lego guy rolling around everywhere in an F1 car. I mean...there's gotta be something not legal about that, right? Is it registered? What the f...It's an F1 car, it can't be registered like that! It's also made of lego so theres no way that could be legal...look, it's just really creepy to have a life size lego guy rolling around in an F1 car all over the place, alright?...Can't do anything...Uhhh....
....Oh! Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw him hauling 100 bricks of cocaine on the back of that F1 car. Yeah. He's definitely a coke dealer. That's all you need? Just my word and that's it? The swat team's on it's way? AWESOME! Thanks. Bye."

* Hangs up phone*

"That'll teach that lego twat for sleeping with my wife..."

Gamecat235 > Dusty Ventures
04/23/2014 at 12:55

That's pretty much my concern. Summarized in one pretty little scenario. The bar for reasonable suspicion has now been lowered to a threshold where "I heard a rumor..." is now grounds for action.

Busslayer > Dusty Ventures
04/23/2014 at 12:55

This certainly will lead to abuse. All the cops have to do is say an anonymous motorist spoke to them in person to provide the tip. There would be no presumption of a electronic or paper trail for the tip.

Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:59

Scalia's minority opinion was *amazing*. I'm interested to see how many people bitch about that opinion just because it came from Scalia.

thebigbossyboss > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 12:59

Not only did you agree with Justice Scalia ttyymmnn...the bench's Liberal wing did as well. I never thought I'd see the day where Sotomayor and Scalia ruled together haha.

ttyymmnn > Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney
04/23/2014 at 13:00

I think that Antonin Scalia is a brilliant man. I just don't agree with his opinions very often. But I sure do here.

ttyymmnn > thebigbossyboss
04/23/2014 at 13:02

Exactly. When these people team up to say that something is fucked, it must be really fucked.

Dusty Ventures > Gamecat235
04/23/2014 at 13:03

Yep. It's that "anonymous" bit in particular that concerns me.

jariten1781 > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 13:03

The only thing that bugs me about this is the anonymity of the tipster. Eyewitness accounts of crimes allow the police to stop and briefly detain people for investigation. That's pretty well established.

I don't get why they didn't take the caller's name and number...that would have made this a non-issue.

offroadkarter > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 13:04

1. Fuck California

2. Fuck the SCJ's who thought this was a good idea

Gamecat235 > Busslayer
04/23/2014 at 13:06

Thinking this through, documentation of a tip occurring will be required. But the anonymity portion of it will likely be retained. This will get very interesting as it is tried. What's to stop a police officer from phoning in an anonymous tip on a burner phone and then pulling over someone. Or from any government agency/hacker calling in an anonymous tip? Previously, some validation of the act was required. This means that anyone can be stopped and searched. For no observed reason.

Will there be a bar for public risk which must be met? Or will that erode as well?

ttyymmnn > jariten1781
04/23/2014 at 13:07

Orin Kerr, writing for The Washington Post, addresses this:

....the majority says that the fact that the call came in via 911 is a relevant factor in favor of reliability because 911 calls can be recorded and FCC regulations require the number of the 911 caller to be passed on to the dispatcher. On this point, I agree with the dissent: I don't see how FCC regulations are relevant. Very few people have any idea what the FCC regulations say about 911 caller ID. As a result, such facts seem very unlikely to impact the reliability of 911 calls as compared to other anonymous tips.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Gamecat235
04/23/2014 at 13:08

Precisely. It's a "bad ruling for 'good' reasons" i.e. one that seems to be good on its face, but which depends upon the lawfulness and order of authority - both transient at best. In theory, if something illegal is witnessed, recorded, and can otherwise be substantiated, it would serve as probable cause for... maybe a stop. Nothing past that, unless other probable cause were forthcoming. Will local departments and authority figures meet that level, or refrain from abuse? Hells to the no.

As concerned as Scalia is about this kind of precedent, typically, his dissent is no surprise.

Busslayer > Gamecat235
04/23/2014 at 13:20

Ideally, we would get a recorded telephone conversation to a 911 call center. But cops get approached in person regularly. I've stopped and notified officers in person of fights and suspicious activity in my neighborhood. It would be nearly impossible to prove these "tips" actually happened. This ruling seems to give the police carte-blanche to search whoever, whenever, for whatever.

jariten1781 > ttyymmnn
04/23/2014 at 13:27

Interesting. I'll have to read the opinion, but the fact they did have her information IMO moves it out of the anonymous tip column to the eye-witness account column. Assuming they have enough information to go after her for false reporting, that makes the burden of making the 911 call more stringent and, without looking at the details yet, I can see how a brief investigative stop might be allowed.

I'm kind of surprised that the cop didn't just fabricate a reason for pulling them over. When I was in HS working over night in a high drug area I got stopped all the time for (looking back) humorously ridiculous reasons. 'Weaving withing the lane', 'brake lights seeming too dim', or the catch all 'not paying full time and attention'. I wonder if the cruisers having cameras have curtailed that nonsense.