Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California High Court Decides Police Can Act on Tips
Officer.com ^ | 28 JUNE 2006 | MAURA DOLAN

Posted on 06/28/2006 2:46:29 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at officer.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: anonymoustips; donutwatch; dui; dwi; govwatch; heroin; leo; sobrietytest; tip
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2006 2:46:31 PM PDT by radar101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: radar101

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?


2 posted on 06/28/2006 2:49:57 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radar101

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


3 posted on 06/28/2006 2:51:31 PM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radar101
Since driving is a gov't granted and regulated privilege, I less inclined to have a problem with this ruling.
4 posted on 06/28/2006 2:54:27 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Support Arnold-McClintock or embrace higher taxes with Angelides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radar101
"They have just given a great tool to angry drivers," she said.

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

5 posted on 06/28/2006 2:54:31 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Concur

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

6 posted on 06/28/2006 2:56:52 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
The dissenters were these justices:

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

7 posted on 06/28/2006 2:57:24 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Support Arnold-McClintock or embrace higher taxes with Angelides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: radar101
"They have just given a great tool to angry drivers," she said.

Beats chasing the A hole!

8 posted on 06/28/2006 3:02:30 PM PDT by rocksblues (Liberals will stop at nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radar101
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.

9 posted on 06/28/2006 3:09:53 PM PDT by capt. norm (W.C. Fields: "The time has come to take the bull by the tail and face the situation".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

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


10 posted on 06/28/2006 3:10:53 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Support Arnold-McClintock or embrace higher taxes with Angelides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: radar101

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.


11 posted on 06/28/2006 3:11:18 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
They act on witness tips all the time.

LOL!
Yes, the good old "anonymous" tip.
12 posted on 06/28/2006 3:12:11 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Since driving is a gov't granted...... privilege
Yes, tell a lie often enough and it becomes the new truth.
.
13 posted on 06/28/2006 3:14:55 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

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


14 posted on 06/28/2006 3:19:14 PM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
USCG has the authority: Anytime, anywhere on a US navigable waterway and within CONUS boundary.
15 posted on 06/28/2006 3:53:32 PM PDT by Mamba56 ("You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." - Gen. Curtis LeMay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
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?

16 posted on 06/28/2006 3:53:39 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
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."
17 posted on 06/28/2006 4:41:23 PM PDT by radar101 (The two hallmarks of Liberals: Fantasy and Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: radar101
It says driving privilege! It does NOT say "Driver's License."
Do you believe everything government tells you?
.
18 posted on 06/28/2006 10:19:07 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

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.


19 posted on 06/29/2006 6:03:31 AM PDT by radar101 (The two hallmarks of Liberals: Fantasy and Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: radar101
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)?
20 posted on 06/29/2006 6:12:32 AM PDT by LIConFem (It is by will alone I set my mind in motion...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson