(Tennessee) State Supremes say anonymous tips sufficient to detain drivers

[TMMT]

(Tennessee) State Supremes say anonymous tips sufficient to detain drivers

Nashville City Paper ^ | 10/20/2009 | Nashville City Paper

Posted on October 21, 2009

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday anonymous tips are sufficient cause for police to stop suspected drunken drivers.

In the case, an anonymous caller to police reported the reckless driving of an 18-wheeler on Interstate 75 in Loudon County. A police officer then found the truck parked on an exit ramp and, after administering field sobriety tests to the driver, arrested him for driving under the influence.

In his argument to the Supreme Court, the driver, Jerry Lee Hanning, contended the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make his 2003 arrest because he didn’t personally see reckless driving. In her opinion, Justice Sharon Lee wrote “the anonymous tip reporting reckless driving indicated a sufficiently high risk of imminent injury or death to members of the public to warrant immediate intervention by law enforcement officials.â€

“Had the officer refrained from detaining Mr. Hanning and allowed him to resume driving, either Mr. Hanning or another member of the public may well have been killed or injured.â€

The court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals and Criminal Court of Loudon County to deny Hanning’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during his arrest.

[TMMT]

So now it comes to this, reasonable suspicion has been reduced to an anonymous tip in the state of Tennessee.

Anyone else see the possibility for abuse, abuse on both sides coming from this ruling?

[Guest H0TSH0T]

i see both sides, the right call was made in this case, however i have been pulled over from an anonymous call before, but that boils down to a he said she said case and more than likely would not stand up in court, but i was stone cold sober

[G27]

I don't care for this ruling one bit.

[strickj]

I don't see a problem with it.

Don't drink and drive,and you wont have a problem...

[Guest jimdigriz]

The driver should take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't think this ruling is compatible with their jurisprudence on detentions.

[LagerHead]

A family friend was changing a tire on I-24 several years back when an 18 wheeler slammed into the back of his car killing his son, who was taken off life support on Christmas day. Several people had tried to get troopers to come and get him off the road as far back as Paducah, KY, but to no avail.

Though I see the point of those against the "unreasonable" stop, as far as drunk drivers go, I say **** 'em with big capital F. I hope every one of them rots in jail. This SOB got off with less than 6 years in jail for murdering an innocent child. Lucky for that guy the dad was a hell of a lot nicer guy than I am, and found forgiveness for him.

[Guest jimdigriz]

Though I see the point of those against the "unreasonable" stop, as far as drunk drivers go, I say **** 'em with big capital F. I hope every one of them rots in jail.

I understand your sentiment, but it's shortsighted. Every time you erode our constitutional rights, you make the possibility of abuse more likely - yes, for innocent people too. Such abuse is already rampant in our society. One day, you will wake up in a police state and wonder, "What happened?!?"

[BryanP]

For those who think that an called-in report of reckless driving shouldn't be sufficient cause for pulling someone over, I ask this:

How is this different from the a phone call to the police saying "I just saw someone messing with the door at a house 3 doors down, and now they just forced it open and have gone inside."

?

[G27]

I don't see a problem with it.

Don't drink and drive,and you wont have a problem...

So you won't be bothered to be pulled over by some anonymous tip even though you're stone sober? What if it happens daily? What happens when someone claims they saw you smoking a joint so the cops decide they need to search your vehicle?

"Don't drink and drive,and you wont have a problem" sounds like left-wing rhetoric regarding the reduction of our rights, honestly. To extrapolate - do you also feel that way about LEOs coming to search your house? I mean, you're a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to hide, right?

Slippery slope and all that...

[Guest jimdigriz]

For those who think that an called-in report of reckless driving shouldn't be sufficient cause for pulling someone over, I ask this:

How is this different from the a phone call to the police saying "I just saw someone messing with the door at a house 3 doors down, and now they just forced it open and have gone inside."

?

Bryan,

The police should certainly investigate in both cases. What happens next depends on what they see when they arrive on the scene. Would you have the police force entry into someone's house because they received an anonymous tip that there was a burglary there? What if there were no other indications of burglary?

[LagerHead]

I understand your sentiment, but it's shortsighted. Every time you erode our constitutional rights, you make the possibility of abuse more likely - yes, for innocent people too. Such abuse is already rampant in our society. One day, you will wake up in a police state and wonder, "What happened?!?"

Like I said, I understand the counter argument, completely. I just have a deep seeded hatred for drunks on our roads. Actually, I think I should be able to run them off the road and plug 'em right there. Then there's no anonymous tip necessary.

Bryan,

The police should certainly investigate in both cases. What happens next depends on what they see when they arrive on the scene. Would you have the police force entry into someone's house because they received an anonymous tip that there was a burglary there? What if there were no other indications of burglary?

I think that's kind of the point. An anonymous tip leads to an investigation. In the case of the guy in the truck, if the officer found a drunk guy in a truck and no bottles, etc in the truck, how do you imagine the drunk guy and truck got there? I am guessing he drove it there. Slam dunk.

Edited October 21, 2009 by LagerHead

[Guest jimdigriz]

"Don't drink and drive,and you wont have a problem" sounds like left-wing rhetoric regarding the reduction of our rights, honestly.

I don't think it sounds like left-wing rhetoric. The right tends to push for more police power and to knee-jerk justify police abuses. But the left doesn't have the courage of their convictions. They complain about a lot of this stuff, but do nothing but expand police power when in power, lest they be portrayed as "soft on crime".

[strickj]

So you won't be bothered to be pulled over by some anonymous tip even though you're stone sober? What if it happens daily? What happens when someone claims they saw you smoking a joint so the cops decide they need to search your vehicle?

"Don't drink and drive,and you wont have a problem" sounds like left-wing rhetoric regarding the reduction of our rights, honestly. To extrapolate - do you also feel that way about LEOs coming to search your house? I mean, you're a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to hide, right?

Slippery slope and all that...

And what your saying sounds like right wing conspiracy.

I mean really now! It no different then calling police on ANYTHING else.

An anonymous tip is just that,a tip.Its not an arrest based on someones word. Its a tip that will lead to an investigation. Nothing more.

Going by what you're saying here,why don't we just do away with 911 system all together

So you won't be bothered to be pulled over by some anonymous tip even though you're stone sober? What if it happens daily? What happens when someone claims they saw you smoking a joint so the cops decide they need to search your vehicle?

If Im doing nothing wrong,I've got nothing to worry about.

[Guest jimdigriz]

If Im doing nothing wrong,I've got nothing to worry about.

Sure you do. There are so many complex laws in our society today, it's impossible to know when you've committed most crimes. So even if you care nothing for your privacy, and for your right and our right to be "secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", you should still not consent to a search, because they may turn up something incriminating against you.

Take a look at this:

Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books

and this:

Amazon.com: Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything (9781930865631): Gene Healy: Books

[strickj]

Sure you do. There are so many complex laws in our society today, it's impossible to know when you've committed most crimes. So even if you care nothing for your privacy, and for your right and our right to be "secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", you should still not consent to a search, because they may turn up something incriminating against you.

Take a look at this:

Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books

and this:

Amazon.com: Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything (9781930865631): Gene Healy: Books

I bet they'll plant a drop gun under my seat if they dont find anything too!

[Guest jimdigriz]

I bet they'll plant a drop gun under my seat if they dont find anything too!

Your faith in the incorruptibility of police is touching.

Although there is a small possibility of the police planting evidence (and there have been many cases of it), the point of my post - easily picked up on if you actually pay attention - is that there are many laws you break without even realizing it. Therefore, it is best to vigorously assert your right, protected by the Constitution, to refuse searches when possible, so that nothing incriminating against you is found. And, even if you are completely innocent of any illegal activities whatsoever, and there is no possibility of them finding anything against you, a right unexercised is a right lost.

[Guest Old goat]

Well, I could say lots about this but I'll make it short.

I have a wife and 10 y/o daughter on the road every day for about an hour, some days more time on the road. If anyone happens to see some a$$ all over the road, drunk, high, or just being an idiot, please call it in. Car, pick up, 18 wheel, or bike I don't care. I'll do the same to try to protect your loved ones even if it pisses you off. I bet the number of tips that are unjustified would be very few.

[strickj]

Once again

Just because there are bad officers out there,does not mean I'll be locked up for not having enough air in my car tires.

If an officer does arrest me for something I did without knowing,then that is my fault for doing it. If an anonymous tip leads to that,then so what.I still did it.The tip did nothing but get me caught.

If I'm arrested for something I din't do,then I will own that officer after I take it to court.

And, even if you are completely innocent of any illegal activities whatsoever, and there is no possibility of them finding anything against you, a right unexercised is a right lost.

And what right would that be?

While we're at it,I think I'll exercise my 3rd amendment right today too.

The 4th is not lost because I consent to a search.Its lost if I refuse to consent to an unwarranted search,and it happens anyway. (not sure why you're going on about searches anyway.The OP was about the TSC's decision on anonymous tips.)

[Guest jimdigriz]

If an officer does arrest me for something I did without knowing,then that is my fault for doing it.

Not necessarily so. It is impossible for you to be fully acquainted with all of the vagaries of the law.

It used to be that criminal intent was necessary for a conviction. Now you can be convicted for completely innocent activities.

(not sure why you're going on about searches anyway.The OP was about the TSC's decision on anonymous tips.)

Both are related to the fourth amendment.

[G27]

And what your saying sounds like right wing conspiracy.

I mean really now! It no different then calling police on ANYTHING else.

Sure it is - they're now being allowed to search based not on a warrant or observed activity, but rather based on some anonymous person's word.

I mean, you really can't see the potential for abuse here? I know you aren't naive, so I'm unsure where you're coming from.

An anonymous tip is just that,a tip.Its not an arrest based on someones word. Its a tip that will lead to an investigation. Nothing more.

No, in this case, that anonymous tip is enough to allow search. That's not the case in other anonymous tips - the suspect still retains all rights until the police have reasonable suspicion.

Going by what you're saying here,why don't we just do away with 911 system all together

Completely unrelated straw-man argument here.

If Im doing nothing wrong,I've got nothing to worry about.

So as long as you're not breaking the law, the 4th amendment doesn't matter to you?

[strickj]

Not necessarily so. It is impossible for you to be fully acquainted with all of the vagaries of the law.

How is it not your fault if you did it?

Seems pretty simple to me. Know the laws.Obey the laws.Have nothing to worry about.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[strickj]

Sure it is - they're now being allowed to search based not on a warrant or observed activity, but rather based on some anonymous person's word.

I mean, you really can't see the potential for abuse here? I know you aren't naive, so I'm unsure where you're coming from.

No, in this case, that anonymous tip is enough to allow search. That's not the case in other anonymous tips - the suspect still retains all rights until the police have reasonable suspicion.

Completely unrelated straw-man argument here.

So as long as you're not breaking the law, the 4th amendment doesn't matter to you?

Sure it is - they're now being allowed to search based not on a warrant or observed activity, but rather based on some anonymous person's word.

No,they're not being allowed to search. The tip lead to an investigation.That investigation lead to the conclusion the driver of the semi was intoxicated.That lead to his arrest.

I mean, you really can't see the potential for abuse here? I know you aren't naive, so I'm unsure where you're coming from.

No,Im not naive.I just don't believe everybody that works for the gov is out to get me.

I also see the the potential for abuse,however that same potential is found in ALL laws...does that mean that because there's a potential for abuse,we should throw out all laws?

Completely unrelated straw-man argument here.

No,its related because all 911 calls are anonymous unless you divulge your info.The reason for the call doesn't matter.

So as long as you're not breaking the law, the 4th amendment doesn't matter to you?

Never said that. Edited October 21, 2009 by strickj

[Guest jimdigriz]

How is it not your fault if you did it?

Seems pretty simple to me. Know the laws.Obey the laws.Have nothing to worry about.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

'Estimates of the current size of the body of federal criminal law vary. It has been reported that the Congressional Research Service cannot even count the current number of federal crimes. The American Bar Association reported in 1998 that there were in excess of 3,300 separate criminal offenses. More than 40 percent of these laws have been enacted in just the past 30 years, as part of the growth of the regulatory state. And these laws are scattered in over 50 titles of the United States Code, encompassing roughly 27,000 pages. Worse yet, the statutory code sections often incorporate, by reference, the provisions and sanctions of administrative regulations promulgated by various regulatory agencies under congressional authorization. Estimates of how many such regulations exist are even less well settled, but the ABA thinks there are "[n]early 10,000."'

The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct

"First, the complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation." (Supreme Court Justice Breyer, in "Rubin vs. United States")

Can you explain to me exactly how I am supposed to "know the law"?

[strickj]

Ok,you made your point there.

But cops are going to know all those?

Be realistic now!

And I'll again ask why we're on this?

This thread was about an anonymous call to 911. Not about warrantless searches,or getting arrested for cursing within 10 ft of a duck in New Hampshire on a holiday.