Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
35. That is in the last two Paragraphs of his opinion
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 05:11 PM
Apr 2014
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf

The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunken­ness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences, even if 911 knows his identity. After all, he never alleged drunkenness, but merely called in a traffic violation—and on that point his word is as good as his victim’s.

Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of hav­ing our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving. I respectfully dissent.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Especially if they look Liberal or Democrat . geretogo Apr 2014 #1
Or dark skinned. Maybe that's redundant. Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #5
So if I'm a cop and want to stop a car for no reason, just a quick phone call subs for a warrant? Scuba Apr 2014 #2
+1000 kickysnana Apr 2014 #3
No--you are conflating stop and inquire with a Carroll search. If you need a warrant to search msanthrope Apr 2014 #7
All they have to do is "smell marijuana". ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2014 #22
I don't understand your question? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #28
no no no. If you're the police, you don't have to go to that much trouble 2pooped2pop Apr 2014 #13
Wow. Why do conservatives hate freedom and our Constitution? bowens43 Apr 2014 #4
Scalia dissented. It's a pretty interesting read. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #8
It grates me... awoke_in_2003 Apr 2014 #34
Trust me..the heavy drinking only starts when you find yourself agreeing with Alito msanthrope Apr 2014 #41
That's a good question. QuestForSense Apr 2014 #10
Scalia has a long history of concerns about search and seizures laws happyslug Apr 2014 #30
Scalia: Upholding search "A freedom-destroying cocktail" Link: 7962 Apr 2014 #31
That is in the last two Paragraphs of his opinion happyslug Apr 2014 #35
Thanks. And he's right. 7962 Apr 2014 #44
Thank Jebus nobody ever gets bitter at other people. tridim Apr 2014 #6
Indeed--kind of the point of Scalia's dissent, to which Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor joined..... msanthrope Apr 2014 #9
And a very interesting dissent it is... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #17
Thanks. I'm pleased to read the dissent, elleng Apr 2014 #19
this is exploitable by the police. bl968 Apr 2014 #11
This is the new America, the truth is that a cop can pull you over for no reason, olddad56 Apr 2014 #12
"You were weaving" is always a favorite, along with "you went over the yellow line" nt 7962 Apr 2014 #32
Time to start reporting law enforcement officer's personal vehicles 1000words Apr 2014 #14
They'll wave it off madville Apr 2014 #43
What could possible go wrong? bvar22 Apr 2014 #15
People are afraid n2doc Apr 2014 #21
Without more, and as a regular driver, elleng Apr 2014 #16
OUCH father founding Apr 2014 #18
Well, no way that can be abused Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #20
Scalia wound up on the right side of an issue for once. pa28 Apr 2014 #23
I think it was a PR move on his part. olddad56 Apr 2014 #29
What if they just dreamed about such a call? Bragi Apr 2014 #24
oh, that would could. preemptive pullover. olddad56 Apr 2014 #37
Sorry about my language Bragi Apr 2014 #55
I stand with Antonin Scalia on this one. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #25
What is the number for calling in tips? LiberalFighter Apr 2014 #26
911--but don't flood it. It is for emergencies. Evergreen Emerald Apr 2014 #51
If 911 is the number they use then not a good idea. LiberalFighter Apr 2014 #56
Fuck 'em. n/t DeSwiss Apr 2014 #27
Well I saw what I believe could be pot in Justice Thomas's car. Somebody call the cops! Nope! No.... marble falls Apr 2014 #33
Funny, I was just a victim of this last week... EX500rider Apr 2014 #36
You filed a complaint about the illegal search, right? ManiacJoe Apr 2014 #38
I'd so own those guys. X_Digger Apr 2014 #47
I partially disagree with Scalia on this Massacure Apr 2014 #39
Cool. I just anonymously called 911 on a local conservative bigot, right after I dropped a bag of Zorra Apr 2014 #40
And the framer is committing multiple madville Apr 2014 #42
I'm not sure of my memory on this but; greiner3 Apr 2014 #45
What does the Fascist 5 on the SCOTUS know about the US Constitution/Bill of Rights, anyway?!?! blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #46
Which Fascist 5 are you referring to? philosslayer Apr 2014 #52
There is a mentally unstable nilesobek Apr 2014 #48
Technically speaking, Heywood J Apr 2014 #49
i don't like this dembotoz Apr 2014 #50
First of all.... Uben Apr 2014 #53
Interesting... But usually they ask you for a name when you call. progressivebydesign Apr 2014 #54
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Police can stop vehicles ...»Reply #35