Posted on 04/22/2014 10:41:07 AM PDT by BigEdLB
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washington.cbslocal.com ...
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
thomas vs scalia? Weird times
Wow! Scalia joining the most liberal of Justices is simply bizarre.
‘A Freedom-Destroying Cocktail’
Not ANOTHER ONE!!??
There’s nothing to stop the police from giving anonymous tips to themselves.
Thomas and Alito are "law and order" conservatives. They will almost never vote to find any search unconstitutional. Scalia can also sometimes be very pro-prosecution in criminal cases, but also sometimes (like today) has a bit of a libertarian streak.
On the "liberal" side of the Court, Kagan and Sotomayor are usually pro-defendant in criminal cases, but Breyer (often) and Ginsburg (sometimes) can be pro-prosecution.
Time to clean house of these azzholes!
Did someone say, “UNEXPECTED”?
That is was I was thinking. Justice Scalia has a Libertarian bent at times. It is interesting to read him. Whether or not you agree, his thoughts are always very detailed.
What was Thomas thinking?
He usually does on cases involving police behavior.
He was thinking, "the guy had drugs in his car. He's guilty. Next case."
If a driver is merely suspected of reckless driving, what would be accomplished by pulling him over??
Now if someone ACCUSES him of reckless driving, and wishes to press the complaint by testifying in court, then file the complaint and let the case be heard. (Anonymous tips don’t enter into this picture, of course.)
Seems clear to me that this is all a smokescreen for abrogating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments - and a thin one at that (which says a lot about the state of affairs in this country.)
This is a tough one and I can see it both ways.
I think the key is that it’s anonymous. So that you can use this to harass people.
What if I anonymously called and said you had a bomb and illegal guns in your house? The police raid you and find nothing. Who is held responsible for this activity? The police were just following up on an anonymous tip. Hell the police could even call it in themselves anonymously...no warrant needed. Call in an anonymous tip that some child is being kept in the basement...no need for a warrant now. Ooops we didn’t find any kids but we did find something else.
[ What if I anonymously called and said you had a bomb and illegal guns in your house? The police raid you and find nothing. Who is held responsible for this activity? The police were just following up on an anonymous tip. Hell the police could even call it in themselves anonymously...no warrant needed. Call in an anonymous tip that some child is being kept in the basement...no need for a warrant now. Ooops we didn’t find any kids but we did find something else. ]
Isn’t that the definition of “SWAT-ing someone”
Yep and it should be illegal. If someone wants to make a charge/complaint it needs to be in name. Anonymous tips are fine for getting the police to keep an eye on something...like driving by and seeing if anything is going on but not entering unless invited.
Scalia is woried that the police could simply setup a checkpoint somewhere with a civilian hired by the police can sit there at the side of the road saying “That car look suspicious” and point at every car being made to go through the checkpoint.
Kagan and the other Liberal witches are looking to protect the dopers who vote Demoncraps, Scalia is looking to protect against unreasonable search and seizure...
Sometimes the “Law and Order Republicans” are as bad as the Statists who “Trust in the Government” when it comes to the power granted to the state...
This is one of those occasions...
What was Thomas thinking?
Probably, that wise or not, that’s what the Constitution and law actually say as understood when they were written.
According to Thomas's opinion for the majority, the purpose is to see if he's drunk and, if so, get him off the road before he hurts someone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.