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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Police can stop vehicles based on anonymous 911 tips, justices rule [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)35. That is in the last two Paragraphs of his opinion
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf
The Courts 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 violationand on that point his word is as good as his victims.
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 todays 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.
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 todays 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
No--you are conflating stop and inquire with a Carroll search. If you need a warrant to search
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#7
Trust me..the heavy drinking only starts when you find yourself agreeing with Alito
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#41
Indeed--kind of the point of Scalia's dissent, to which Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor joined.....
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#9
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
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
Cool. I just anonymously called 911 on a local conservative bigot, right after I dropped a bag of
Zorra
Apr 2014
#40
What does the Fascist 5 on the SCOTUS know about the US Constitution/Bill of Rights, anyway?!?!
blkmusclmachine
Apr 2014
#46