RT NewsLaw enforcement officials may now stop US drivers based only on the information gleaned in an anonymous tip phoned in by a caller who dialed 911, the Supreme Court ruled in a tight decision Tuesday.
The high court ruled 5-4 that relying only on a comment from a 911 caller is reasonable because “a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers.” In most cases the justices are split along ideological lines but Tuesday’s decision was enough to split the two most conservative-minded justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia leading the dissent.
The case considered a 2008 California incident in which an anonymous 911 caller told the police that a pickup truck had forced her off the road, providing the location, as well as details such as the truck’s make, model, and license plate number. Police soon stopped a vehicle matching the description and reported smelling the odor of marijuana as they approached driver Jose Prado Navarette.
Navarette was arrested because officers found 30 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle, although he argued that the initial stop was unconstitutional because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his truck. His legal team asserted that the police could not have determined with any accuracy the identity of the caller or challenged her credibility.
The Supreme Court has long maintained that police may act on anonymous tips, although those tips are required to include enough detail so that officers can formulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, according to NPR. Justice Thomas used this rationale in his opinion, claiming that police may have felt, based on the 911 call, that the truck driver was intoxicated behind the wheel.
“We have firmly rejected the argument that reasonable cause for an investigative stop can only be based on the officer’s personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person,” Thomas wrote, although the court heard no evidence that the responding officers witnessed Navarette driving recklessly.
Writing for the majority, Thomas said the anonymous caller’s comments contained enough “indicia of reliability” to give police enough reasonable suspicion to halt the truck.
“The officer was therefore justified in proceeding from the premise that the truck has, in fact, caused the caller’s car to be dangerously diverted from the highway,” he went on. “Running another vehicle off the road suggests lane positioning problems, decreased vigilance, impaired judgment, or some combination of those recognized drunk driving cues.”
Justice Scalia, who usually agrees with Thomas, wrote a stinging rebuke of the majority decision in his own dissent.
“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,” he wrote, as quoted by US News and World Report.
“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. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences even if 911 knows his identity.”
Boy this will allow us to keep the boys in blue hopping if we all decided to call and “report” BS for them to run around and check into
I agree, it opens many doors, doesn’t it?
Don’t like your neighbor, etc. . . . . Who ya gonna call???
One of my pals for some time told me that his older brother (with his then girlfriend) called in bank robberies to several banks in Reno, NV then robbed one away from the action, got away scot free.
After living in Seattle for some time they ran out of money. Knowing a great way to make some fast cash they went back to Reno (same city, fairly stupid I always thought) and tried it again.
Sure, it worked again! One of the old fart cops was then a detective, something sparked an old memory. He searched through some old files & crap and realized it was the same deal.
The guy that pulled the heist was questioned after the first job, but released due to lack of evidence (something like that anyway). After going through the previous suspects they located him and, well he did some solid time.
His brother told me they made some low grade movie about the jobs, cannot remember the name.
Aside from a cool story and to the point, yes, distraction definately works. heck, the Dems have been usings it more & more for decades.
Yes, it’s just another flimsy excuse to abuse the rights of Sovereign Americans. Betcha $10 bucks when you request a copy of the “anonymous” phone tip, it will have miraculously disappeared into cyberspace. So much for our precious rights when they can be abused as such.
Only an anonymous tip? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL you sick psychopaths! It CLEARLY goes against the 4th Article Right.
Hang these Commies! Every last one of them.
Cops pull people over on suspicion for damn near anything – no chance they simply make $hit up then, nope, not the cops.
This is the same deal with another name.
“The Supreme Court has long maintained that police may act on anonymous tips, although those tips are required to include enough detail so that officers can formulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, according to NPR.”
Detailed? Let’s see….I bet their report goes something like this:
“Report: Received an anonymous tip of a suspicious car on a street. So we needed to raid all the houses along the street and the next street behind it.”
Judge: “Ok that’s good enough for me!”
PSYCHOPATHS!!!
Thomas said the anonymous caller’s comments contained enough “indicia of reliability” to give police enough reasonable suspicion to halt the truck.
Should he be making precedent-setting decisions based on the apparent reliability of one caller? It seems to me that he just gave cops across the country the ability to pull over anyone based on an anonymous tip because he believed this one particular 9-1-1 caller’s comments contained enough “indicia of reliability”, which is a very subjective criteria in my opinion.
Jolly Roger – this [in legalese] is refered to as “dicta” – wherein the Court [Judge] relates how he is concluding [making sh*t up] in order to get to where he wants to go – [only necessary] in the absense of the law, clearly providing a [Constitutional] path –
Your last sentence is spot on = it is: “very subjective criteria”.
Well they break down doors and tear people’s homes apart (after killing their dog) all the time based on the word of a junkie with strong motivations to lie, so I guess this isn’t really too surprising.
EVERYONE in our government is going to be continually whittling away at our rights while pretending to be protecting them. That’s what they do, and this is no different. It’s just another slice of freedom taken from our pie, and it will continue until they’re forced out of office.
lets all start making anonymous calls on our state and countries representatives , lets have them stopped and harassed by our police forces on a daily hourly basis
this could become a useful tool taken out of context…lol they deserve every bit and you know it
force the cops to abide by the 4th article
we are allowed to confront our accuser, by oath or afermation , so until they are produced, provide nothing to the law
Ain’t that grand.
The freakin’ cops themselves will be the ones phoning in anonymous tips.