Scalia: Court Upholding Traffic Stop Based On Anonymous Tip ‘A Freedom-Destroying Cocktail’

CBSDC ^ | 4/22/14 | CBSDC

[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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Need to start phoning in anonymous tips on government officials.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I would think that 911 would have a recording of the anonymous tip.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Probably, that wise or not, that’s what the Constitution and law actually say as understood when they were written.

And Scalia's dissent says that the Constitution as understood when it was written means exactly the opposite. Since there were no automobiles, freeways or highway patrols in 1789, it's kind of hard to tell...

[LearsFool]

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.

That justifies pulling you over. And me. And anyone, anytime.

Someone has to make an accusation. Typically, that's the traffic cop. But in this case, the cop observed no reckless driving, so he can make no accusation. And the "witness" was considered anonymous, so she can make no accusation.

This is far afield from the processes which guide to justice - those processes guaranteed to each of us (the guilty as well as the innocent) in the Bill of Rights.

[envisio]

Thats along the same lines as; “I can search you and your car because my probable cause is I think you are acting suspicious”

“Whats your probable cause?”
“You’re acting funny.”

[fuzzylogic]

Exactly. Is the the level of wisdom we can expect from OUR SC? This is ludicrous, a complete end-around the constitution.

[Orangedog]

These terrorists hate us for our freedom! No, not the the terrorists hiding in a cave. There might be a dozen of those on a good day. I mean the ~600 terrorists hold up in the fever swamp on the Potomac.

[First_Salute]

License to kill, given by the USSC, to every government agent.

An anonymous tipster says, that you have a firearm and waived it around before driving away.

Odds are, you are going to die ... that day ... and not have a clue during your few moments of confusion-compounding-terror preceding the “100 shots fired.”

Almost *no police officer* will believe your sputtering surprise at being attacked by an army.

The USSC decision is madness, to believe that police officers will as narrowly figure on the issue being a traffic stop for the purpose of making sure that you are sober ... as has the incredibly and suddenly extremely narrow imagination of the Justices.

[Amendment10]

I would think that 911 would have a recording of the anonymous tip.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I question the use of 911 for tips.

[servantboy777]

>>There’s nothing to stop the police from giving anonymous tips to themselves.<<

Yep, and now it will sweep across the land. Have a co-worker that can't stand your guts?

What if someone wanted to exact revenge for a disagreement? They call the lawman and say they saw you at a traffic light smoking a doobie or snorting a white powder.

What scary times we live.

[zeugma]

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.

Ah yes, the infamous 'alcohol' exception to the constitution. Yeah, it's in my copy right under the section about "assault rifles'.

If you'd read through the oral arguments, some of the lineups in the opinions is kinda surprising. That's why you can't take questions posed during oral arguments at face value.

[kevkrom]

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.

Ah, but if you read Scalia's whole dissent, he addresses this. The police trailed the vehicle in question for five minutes before pulling it over, despite observing no traffic violations whatsoever in that time. Scalia agrees that the anonymous tip was sufficient cause for the police to observe the vehicle, but not to pull it over and then use that stop as a search pretext.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I agree with you (and Scalia). I was responding to someone who asked what the majority’s rationale was.

[Svartalfiar]

Ah, but if you read Scalia's whole dissent, he addresses this. The police trailed the vehicle in question for five minutes before pulling it over, despite observing no traffic violations whatsoever in that time. Scalia agrees that the anonymous tip was sufficient cause for the police to observe the vehicle, but not to pull it over and then use that stop as a search pretext.

Yup, that's exactly how it should be. An anonymous tip (or even named tip) should be cause for the police to observe the subject. But, especially for an anonymous tip, unless the police observe some kind of criminal activity, they shouldn't be able to do anything. An anonymous tip can't be a witness in court. That leaves no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. And certainly doesn't justify a search of the vehicle.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I’m not in a good place with Scalia right now. He has jumped the shark with his crazy talk about TSA and NSA.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[JimRed]

On some limited access roadways you see signs asking you to report aggressive drivers by dialing *77 (IIRC). That kind of anonymous tip probably saves lives.

[JimRed]

I would think that 911 would have a recording of the anonymous tip.

Caller ID, too.

[Flame Retardant]

Scalia's dissent says that the Constitution as understood when it was written means exactly the opposite. Since there were no automobiles, freeways or highway patrols in 1789, it's kind of hard to tell...

There were carriages, roads, and city watches in 1789, and even earlier. As I recall, back in the day the King's men would occasionally stop and harass travelers with no basis beyond "we hear that you're a troublemaker", and the Founders of the new republic didn't care to have this behavior emulated under the new system.

[READINABLUESTATE]

I wonder if any of these justices who voted for this drive a car? Anonymous swatting anyone?