Supreme Court upholds ban on traffic stops based on a caller's tip

[DaveM55]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1206283.story

The Supreme Court cast some doubt Tuesday on the legal authority of a police officer to pull over a suspected drunk driver based solely on a caller's tip.

Over a strong dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the high court let stand a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that held a police officer can follow but cannot stop a suspected drunk driver's car until the officer sees the driver do something suspicious, such as swerve in a lane.

"The effect of [this] rule will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can be pulled over by the police," Roberts said. "It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check."

Roberts noted that hotlines and other services encouraged the public to report suspected drunk drivers.

The Supreme Court's action is not a formal ruling, and it does not require other states to follow Virginia's lead. But the case is likely to encourage more legal challenges to police stops that rely solely on anonymous tips.

[anonymouse]

Followup from http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/7...ble-cause.html (Score One for Probable Cause!!)

[Hawk]

About 20 years ago I was on my way to an evening class (still light out). I had just turned onto a residential street and ended up behind a a guy that was all over the road. He even sideswiped a telephone pole and ran up onto the curb a few times and never hesitated. I followed him for a minute or two where he stopped at at least one red light before proceeding to a fast food place, where he parked. I wrote down the license plate and description of the vehicle and occupant. I knew I was going to pass a police station on my way to class so I stopped and went inside to inform the desk Sargent of the situation (that was only two-three minutes old). He took the information rather casually and said thanks. It appeared to me he really didn't care, since he didn't initiate any action while I was standing there and as I walked back out of the station. If this was to happen today I would consider my actions as more than just a tip and should be enough grounds for the police to investigate. Who knows, the guy might have needed medical attention instead of being drunk. I sure as hell wouldn't want to restrict the police from investigating any report of reckless driving from a civilian if there is a possibility of a medical emergency.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Hawk

About 20 years ago I was on my way to an evening class (still light out). I had just turned onto a residential street and ended up behind a a guy that was all over the road. He even sideswiped a telephone pole and ran up onto the curb a few times and never hesitated. I followed him for a minute or two where he stopped at at least one red light before proceeding to a fast food place, where he parked. I wrote down the license plate and description of the vehicle and occupant. I knew I was going to pass a police station on my way to class so I stopped and went inside to inform the desk Sargent of the situation (that was only two-three minutes old). He took the information rather casually and said thanks. It appeared to me he really didn't care, since he didn't initiate any action while I was standing there and as I walked back out of the station. If this was to happen today I would consider my actions as more than just a tip and should be enough grounds for the police to investigate. Who knows, the guy might have needed medical attention instead of being drunk. I sure as hell wouldn't want to restrict the police from investigating any report of reckless driving from a civilian if there is a possibility of a medical emergency.

IMHO, the court isn't saying the police can't talk to the person. They just can't initiate a Terry Stop and detain, demand a search, etc. without PC/RAS. With that said, if the person is in the process of driving the car, obviously conversation isn't possible, and in that case the LEO can't pull over without PC/RAS.

Then again, if the LEO in your situation attempts to approach the person based on the information he has been given in an attempt to establish PC/RAS, it could be argued that the LEO is on a fishing expedition.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I sure as hell wouldn't want to restrict the police from investigating any report of reckless driving from a civilian if there is a possibility of a medical emergency.

this does not stop them from investigating. in fact, all this says is that they have to investigate to develop RAS before stopping the person.

in your case, they could have gone and looked at the damage to the telephone pole and the matching damage to the car and most likely had RAS from that.

all this is saying is that i cannot harass you by calling the police and anonymously telling them you are swerving in order to get you pulled over by the police. er, well, it is also acknowledging that some form of the 4th amendment is still in effect...which is, of course, a good thing.

personally, i do not want to be subject to being stopped without RAS...no matter what the supposed benefits to society are.