California High Court Decides Police Can Act on Tips

Officer.com ^ | 28 JUNE 2006 | MAURA DOLAN

[radar101]

Law enforcement may stop and detain drivers based on anonymous and uncorroborated tips that they were driving while intoxicated, the California Supreme Court decided 4-3 Monday.

The state high court ruled that the California Highway Patrol acted legally when it pulled over a woman outside Bakersfield, even though its officer did not personally note any evidence of impaired driving. The officer was responding to a telephone tip that the van was weaving.

The driver, Susan Wells, 49, failed a sobriety test and was arrested. A subsequent search of her van found heroin. She was sentenced to 16 months in prison and appealed on the grounds that the CHP had stopped her improperly.

A lawyer for Wells said California's high court went further than any court in the country in giving law enforcement the ability to pull over motorists based on anonymous tipsters.

Elizabeth Campbell, a lawyer with the Central California Appellate Program, noted that the state has signs urging motorists to report suspected drunk drivers to the Highway Patrol. Because the ruling permits anonymous tips, people motivated by road rage or personal vendettas may now make such reports, Campbell said.

"They have just given a great tool to angry drivers," she said.

She said Wells will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ruled that police cannot pat down someone to search for a weapon based on an anonymous tip.

Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, said the court "properly balanced" the competing interests of public safety and the right to be free of government intrusion.

[Atlas Sneezed]

No brainer, even for an ardent civil libertarian.

They act on witness tips all the time. Why should a tip that someone is driving badly not be reasonable suspicion to detain for drunkeness? Haven't they had "report a drunk" tip lines for years?

[mtbopfuyn]

So, who were the 3 bozos who voted against this?

[newzjunkey]

Since driving is a gov't granted and regulated privilege, I less inclined to have a problem with this ruling.

[TeleStraightShooter]

"They have just given a great tool to angry drivers," she said.

Beats physical violence. I though law enforcement can through callerID blocking.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Concur

Would the same logic apply to boating on public waterways or off road vehicles?

[newzjunkey]

The dissenters were these justices:

Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Joyce L. Kennard and Carlos R. Moreno.

[rocksblues]

"They have just given a great tool to angry drivers," she said.

Beats chasing the A hole!

[capt. norm]

If you're not juiced and endangering lives, there is nothing to worry about.

If you have "four on the floor and an open 5th under the seat", or a sizeable quantity of illegal drugs, illegal aliens or *AOL sign-up CD's in your vehicle, you may have a problem.

*If the vehicle is a garbage truck or "Hazmat" cleanup vehicle it can haul as many AOL CD's as weight limits allow.

[newzjunkey]

Seems it would apply to licensed operator vehicle use on at least non-private property.

[jiggyboy]

Cops have been using the old "you were weaving" BS for years as a pretext for a fishing expedition for making the monthly quota. This just expands it, not that you would be able to tell anyway.

[mugs99]

They act on witness tips all the time.

LOL!
Yes, the good old "anonymous" tip.

[mugs99]

Since driving is a gov't granted...... privilege
Yes, tell a lie often enough and it becomes the new truth.
.

[jaydubya2]

I beleive the Coast Guard can board your vessel any time they please for a "Safety Check". They need no probable cause.

[Mamba56]

USCG has the authority: Anytime, anywhere on a US navigable waterway and within CONUS boundary.

[elkfersupper]

Since driving is a gov't granted and regulated privilege, I less inclined to have a problem with this ruling.

Wherever did you get that idea?

[radar101]

Vehicle Code Section 14601 - Driving When Privilege Suspended or Revoked.a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at any time when that person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for reckless driving in violation of Section 23103 or 23104, any reason listed in subdivision (a) or (c) of......................................................... It says driving privilege! It does NOT say "Driver's License."

[mugs99]

It says driving privilege! It does NOT say "Driver's License."
Do you believe everything government tells you?
.

[radar101]

Do you believe everything government tells you?
When it is posted in a Law Book, yes.

You remind me of an attorney. He came to court to plead his client guilty to exceeding 100 mph.The penatly ranges from a $325 fine and one month suspension of DRIVING PRIVILEGE to $1350 fine and 6 months suspension of driving privilege.

The Judge was announcing the minimum when the attorney exploded" You can't suspend my client's license--she is from New Jersey, and has a New Jersey License." The judge began to admonish the attorney about the idea of driver's licenses indicating the ability to drive, when the attorney again told the judge what he could do.
Thew Judge said" Your Client has a DRIVING PRIVILEGE. THAT DRIVING PRIVILEGE is suspended for SIX MONTHS, and her fine is $1350.
By the Driver's License Compact[Interstate agreement], her DRIVING PRIVILEGE is also suspended in New Jersey, and her insurance is worthless.

[LIConFem]

Do you believe everything government tells you?

When it is posted in a Law Book, yes.

Law books trump the Bill of Rights (see 9th Amendment)?