Supreme Court: Police may stop drivers based on "anonymous" tips.

originally posted by: Gozer

originally posted by: gladtobehere

...In essence, anyone can be stopped for any reason. The police simply have to say that they received an "anonymous tip"...

And the police state marches on...

That's how I interpreted it. They won't even need an "actual" anonymous call. Now they can just make it up as they go along (which they are really good at already).

They can make the "anonymous call" themselves, for that matter.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: gladtobehere

If this is being interpreted properly, I as a police officer disagree with this decison.

In no way should an anonymous tip be considered reliable, and it definitely shouldn't be considered reasonable suspicion.

So basically someone that dislikes you can say that they saw you driving recklessly. When an officer finds you they can then pull you over. They didn't witness the reckless driving (because it didn't occur) so they can't write a ticket for that. Well what if you forgot your registration or insurance card that day. You are then written a ticket. That is wrong on so many levels.

The stop was improper because the officer did not witness the violation. Therefore the ticket should be thrown out. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

This will cause so many issues. This needs to be overturned.

It can't be, at least not until a lib SC justice kicks it or retires during the next (Republican) administration and it is challenged.

originally posted by: azdaze
a reply to: gladtobehere

Ok, so there has been a new precedent set. Reading the article I see that Thomas asserts that because 911 calls can be tracked and traced , there is only a conditional level of anonymity. So, if I am Joe banker, and an anonymous call comes through about me, and they discover drugs in my car, I have the money to hire a very competent lawyer and investigative team to look into that 911 call. I can determine where and when the call came from, and probably even who made it. By examining the recording of the call combined with time and location data, I CAN mount a defense to this and possibly get the evidence thrown out because of a misleading tip from an anonymous caller . I really do think that if something like this arose, and it went all the way back to the SCOTUS, then we may in fact see a reversal.

Plus, it helps the wheels of justice grind even slower while costing to defend against it keeps lawyers in a secure career...

a reply to: gladtobehere
Sadly, this is nothing new. In 2007 I was stopped by police, they had received a tip that I was driving drunk. I was not, but it did not stop them from ripping my car apart. I found out later it was an ex gf who called in the tip.

originally posted by: seagull
...and the police state marches on.

Cry me a friggin' river, folks. Who, in our infinite wisdom, decided that not being involved in governing our own nation was the way to go?

Oh, yeah...

Most of us. We don't vote. We don't attend city council meetings. ...But, hey, when things aren't as we think they should be, we squall like a cat with its tail under a rocking chair.

Spare me. Just spare me. We're getting exactly, and I mean exactly what we deserve. So enjoy it. We've earned it.

While I dont include myself in that "we" (i have participated in every way possible in government), i think you are spot on.

The fox has been given the keys to the henhouse, and somehow, people are only now realizing that it was a bad idea.

a reply to: gladtobehere
I am not sure which is worse, a neighbor or anyone that can call the IRS anonymous tip line on you without any basis or this, what's this world coming to?

a reply to: gladtobehere

Things can always get worse. But, for anyone that thinks the USA is a bastion of liberty or opportunity or democracy or anything else..... WAKE UP!

This government and it's owners are the clear enemies of freedom and democracy. It's continuing to devolve. The elections are no better than Iraq in terms of individual vesting. This is the evil empire. Even Russia can claim and occupy the moral high ground vs the US. This is truly ironic to me.

A border fence will be built. ---but not for the reasons the wannabe authoritarians intended.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: gladtobehere

If this is being interpreted properly, I as a police officer disagree with this decison.

In no way should an anonymous tip be considered reliable, and it definitely shouldn't be considered reasonable suspicion.

So basically someone that dislikes you can say that they saw you driving recklessly. When an officer finds you they can then pull you over.

This will cause so many issues. This needs to be overturned.

Well you know...

See Something Say Something.

We are being conditioned to spy and rat each other out, and the police are being conditioned to see civilians as the enemy and now police can use the petty vendettas of the populace as a reason to treat them as such.

The wires just get tighter and tighter.

I am glad that you are conscientious. I think that currently many police officers still are, but this is changing more and more.

I believe the liberal justices in recent decades have been more protective of individuals' rights against search and seizure. Justice Stevens, for example.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

5 years ago I had the sheriff's office come to my home. Dressed in street clothes and showing no badges. Knocked on my door and told me they had an anonymous call that I had a LARGE weed growing opertaion in my home. Asked if they could come in an look around. Actually tried to step pass me into my door. I said, " do you have a warrant" I was told 'NO'. I said go get you a warrant then come on back out and you can look all you want. I was told " damn I'm gonna have to start an investigation now" I said " then that's what you need to do"

They were quite pissed off. I asked them a simple question. When did you get the anonymous call? Refused to answer. I then asked" what Judge in this county is going to give you a warrant based on an anonymous tip? They sort of stared at me in dis-beleif I said that. They left. I have never seen them since. They gave ma a business card that said they were with the "Crime Suppression Unit" I still have the card. They also refused to show me any badges or badge numbers.

I promptly went to sheriffs dept the same day and filed a greivence complaint. Never heard a word back from anyone. I know have it to where you just cant drive in my driveway and walk up to the door. Fence, gate, intercom. Now my front gate is my front door. 175yards away. Never trust the damn police,never. This new crap is gonna be a boon for the police dept nationwide. For the record. I have never had a growing operation in my home, just starting spouts early for my garden.

a reply to: openyourmind1262

Now you're talking, see, it's like anything else, you show them that you are serious about your rights and also show them your knowledge, that is a very good approach, if things go beyond it, approach as though your life depends on it, you get the best lawyer you can or someone that is notorious for winning cases in your jurisdiction, they do recognize business cards and names of attorneys down at the courthouse that are about their business and it also speaks to your actual beliefs about your rights and possibly your innocence, any detective you tell contact my lawyer will get the message, and if there was nothing to it, you will not hear from them again.

a reply to: nextone

I believe the liberal justices in recent decades have been more protective of individuals' rights against search and seizure. Justice Stevens, for example.

From the guy that wants to change the constitution?
What other examples do you have?

so if my neighbor beats me at call of duty, i can wait until leaves for work, and screw up his whole day by going to the pay phone up the road, calling 911, and saying i think he's driving around with a 5th of whiskey, a bag of joints, and a hooker?

and this is ok?

SWEET! i frickin' LOVE this country.....





[DISCLAIMER: i was being facetious]

originally posted by: MrSpad
Well this is not anything new. Per that very article

The court has long held that officers can make stops based on anonymous tips, but the information in those tips must provide enough detail to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

In this case a truck ran a woman off the road. She called 911 and told them what had happened but did not give her name. This gave the police the belief the driver was driving drunk and they pulled him over. This so far has always been help up in the courts as legal. When they searched the vehicle the found 30 lbs of pot.

I think the dissent shows how the Court disregarded precedents, in which is correctly highlighted above, in this case. For instance, according to the Opinion and Dissent, the anonymous "tip" assumed too much and broadened the scope of the accepted anonymous tip framework established by the Courts.

Prado Navarette v. California
Here, Scalia dissents on the notion that the anonymous tip was enough to pull over someone using a "Terry" stop (the Court has held before that small brief encounters with officers of the law do not violate the 4th Amendment) --reference page 21 of the PDF.

Scalia writes:

Not only, it turns out, did the police have no good reason at first to believe that Lorenzo was driving
drunk, they had very good reason at last to know that he was not. The Court concludes that the tip, plus confirmation of the truck’s location, produced reasonable suspicion that the truck not only had been but still was
barreling dangerously and drunkenly down Highway 1. Ante, at 8–10. In fact, alas, it was not, and the officers knew it. They followed the truck for five minutes, presumably to see if it was being operated recklessly.

In the original case, officers admitted that they witnessed no crime being committed by the vehicle assumed to be be the offender via the anonymous tip. For five-minutes they followed the vehicle and observed no reckless driving.

The State, in the original case, couldn't offer the following:

he State offers no evidence to suggest that the peti­tioners even did anything suspicious, such as suddenly
slowing down, pulling off to the side of the road, or turning somewhere to see whether they were being followed.

So while precedent is surely established in the case of anonymous tips, this case has broadened the narrow definition that was previously held. That is the real issue here.

For reference, the previous litmus for anonymous tips was as follows (as established via White):
-- Does the "content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability...” give officers reasonable suspicion. (In their opinion, the majority said it did)

-- Second, when the only source of a tip is a sole source, the court applies "indicia of reliability".

The problem with the application of the above, is the Court, nor the State, could ever prove that the anonymous tip was intimate of the knowledge regarding this alleged reckless driving; nor could one know what exactly caused such driving -- especially officers that investigated rightfully. In so, after 5 minutes of observation, the continued observance of a driver introduces factors that could be a cause for a Terry stop that were not evident prior to the following of that vehicle.

The majority got this one wrong and expanded what used to be a narrow application of anonymous tips.

a reply to: minkmouse

Not bad, not bad.... Luckily, my ex-husband keeps himself in enough trouble drinking and driving (cuz he is an idiot), that I don't have to contribute to his continuous downfall.

I just want to anonymously call in each member of the police department. Not to mention the DA.

Just think, if you live in a small enough town, you could keep all of the police officers busy pulling one another over, leaving the general populace in peace.

a reply to: gladtobehere

The power they're getting is just ridiculous. I know I'm not alone in stating I'm getting sick and tired of it. What's next? Walk with the wrong bounce to your step and you'll be taken down? Glance at a police officer wrong because maybe you're thinking about an argument with a friend an hour before and you'll be taken down for looking like you want to kick the cops butt?

Where does it end? This really frightens me. Now I know a few cops who are how cops should BE. Love them for it. But those who are letting it go to their head, that scares me. Hasn't a cop posted on here before about what's going on/why they act like they do? Or am I thinking of something else? It was like a year or more ago if I recall correctly.

I know that many cops carry what is known as a burner phone.

One of the uses of this burner phone is to make anonymous phone calls.

A friend had his home searched based on what the cops claimed was a confidential informant.

The cops trashed his home by dumping everything he owned in big piles on the floor they even took everything in the kitchen flour sugar cereal ect ect and ripped the packages open and dumped them in a pile on the floor.

The big mistake was the friend worked undercover for the navy NCIS office.

The funny part i first meet the guy in the navy when he was assigned to the barracks room i was in in Long Beach calif.
he was a playing a enlisted man.
About 6 months later i ran into him again as a navy officer in San Diego.

About a year later after i got out of the Navy and was working as a federal security officer i ran into him again and he was working undercover on the navy base i was working at.
Because the NCIS did not trust the local cops they never let them know about my friend.

Because of the people he was seen with and his looks while undercover the local cops thought he was dealing drugs but could never get anything on him.
Yes he was seen around locals that were in the local drug click.
Because he was trying to catch drug dealers working on base.

NCIS was able to find out there was no confidential informant and prove that the cops lied to the judge to get there search warrant.

None of the local cops were fired but NCIS was able to use there proof against the local cops as blackmail for years.

a reply to: openyourmind1262

Sounds like you were visited by a narcotics unit. Plain clothes. Once they receive a complaint they generally conduct a "knock and talk." If the resident does not allow the narc in they will leave. That is usually when they start an investigation. Undercover surveillance, controlled buys, confidential informants etc.

It sounds like someone made a false or incorrect narcotics complaint against you. The narcs did their investigation but came up with nothing so they moved on.

I am sorry that you don't trust the police. It hurts to know you feel that way because I am a police officer who loves helping the community. If you were local to me I would gladly introduce myself to you and prove that I, like the people I work with, are on your side.

a reply to: sarra1833

I did post several reasons as to why I believe (if we truly are) seeing an increase in police corruption, lack of legal knowledge and mistakes made/policy violations in a thread a while ago.

Of course everything I said was absolutely dismissed and ostracized by the blanket cop bashers that are prevalent on ATS.

This has been allowed for awhile, the reason it's so tough to overturn is because law enforcement uses it and there's big bucks in it.

The NSA/FBI spies on citizens and finds evidence of a possible crime. They provide an anonymous tip to local law enforcement, who then use that tip to generate an arrest. Sometimes it's used to stop a massive drug shipment, other times it's used to punish someone (one of the common stories on the darkweb is to buy some drugs, ship it to someones house, and toss the police an anonymous tip).

Because it's used so much in the war on drugs, the chances of getting rid of it without a reversal to that policy is slim to none.