Supreme Court To Rule Whether An Anonymous Tip Is Enough For A Traffic Stop

[Locutus]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will weigh whether a motorist's anonymous tip about reckless driving is enough for police to pull over a car, without an officer's corroboration of dangerous driving.

The issue has divided state and federal courts.

The justices said they will take up an appeal by two brothers who pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana after California Highway Patrol officers pulled over their silver Ford 150 pickup based on a report of reckless driving.

The officers did not observe erratic driving, but acted after dispatchers received a 911 call saying the vehicle had run the caller off the road and identifying it by its model, color and license plate. Officers searched the truck after smelling marijuana, found four large bags of it and arrested driver Lorenzo Prado Navarette and passenger Jose Prado Navarette. They appealed after pleading guilty and are arguing that the traffic stop violated their constitutional rights, based on an earlier high court ruling that anonymous tips by themselves ordinarily are not sufficient for police to detain or search someone.

The question for the justices is whether anonymous tips about reckless or drunken driving should be treated differently.

Link to full story

[Locutus]

I'm of two minds on this. 

1.  We obviously need to do what we can to keep impaired, reckless, and dangerous drivers off of the road.  So in that sense, I can see where the eyes of the public can help law enforcement find these dangerous drivers and stop them.

2.  I can also see this being abused a bit.  Someone gets into a minor traffic disagreement with someone else and they flip them the bird.  If the flipped off party knows that an accusation against the other party (even if they didn't do anything wrong) is enough to get them pulled over and inconvenienced for a bit, certain people may make that call.  That would be an instance of abuse if an officer didn't see any sort of illegal driving occurring before pulling the vehicle over.

Thoughts anyone?

[Henry Hawk]

Better call Saul

[Palehorse]

In the absence of injury or damage to public/private property, or the first had observance of a violation of traffic law(s) by the LEO, I call bullshit. (For the very reason you state in #2 above Locutus for one thing. . .)

Now, that being said, anyone knows that if a LEO wants to pull you over, all they have to do is follow you for 1 to 5 miles and you will commit an offense that allows them to pull you over. Anything from crossing the center line, failure to signal, or even a blown out license plate bulb is reason for a stop.

Absent a valid reason for initially pulling over a vehicle, in my mind anything discovered afterwards is fruit of the poisoned tree.

[Locutus]

I agree with all of that PH.

I also think I already know which side of the argument they're going to land on as well.  There are comments by Chief Justice Roberts in that article above that clearly indicate which side he is on.