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

[DaveTN]

They always put it out to us as “Make your own caseâ€. You can have a traffic offense on anyone (drunk or not) in a few blocks. However, our Judges recognized an anonymous call as PC for a stop; just like any other crime.

Edited October 21, 2009 by DaveTN

[-boatman-]

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

Yes I do. I can see someone calling in on someone else they are mad at or just don't like, even when they may not be drinking. I am all for getting the drunks off the road but this will have some negative things happening and I wonder how that will be handled.

[strickj]

Yes I do. I can see someone calling in on someone else they are mad at or just don't like, even when they may not be drinking. I am all for getting the drunks off the road but this will have some negative things happening and I wonder how that will be handled.

You get pulled over,the officer sees nothing is wrong,and you're let go

[Guest jimdigriz]

You get pulled over,the officer sees nothing is wrong,and you're let go

Like the guy in this video?

(Man taken by police to hospital and forcibly catherized, even after breath test on the scene indicated he was sober).

The real world doesn't work as simply, fairly, and reasonably as you seem to imagine.

Edited October 21, 2009 by jimdigriz

[Guest jimdigriz]

Ok,you made your point there.

But cops are going to know all those?

Be realistic now!

And yet people are arrested and prosecuted for these offenses with surprising frequency.

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.

No one is forcing you to discuss it. I'd say we're on it because some people (including you, judging by post volume) are interested enough to talk about it. But the larger point goes to our 4th amendment rights. They are worth preserving, even if it means that some drunk-driving SOBs go unpunished.

[Guest Gun Geek]

Slippery slope and all that...

Exactly.

I have a story about a guy in Pigeon Forge that suffered from an anonymous tip regarding a child in his basement. Long story short, after breaking in during the wee hours of the morning they discovered there was no basement and they had the wrong house. I will get some more details (go talk to the guy) and post something about it.

[Guest Revelator]

Stop and seizure cases are extremely dependent on facts, so I wouldn't go making assumptions or predictions about the future based on this one case. In its ruling the court points out that the anonymous caller phoned in during or right after the offense occurred, that they gave a detailed description of the truck, its direction, and its location, that the officer verified these details moments after the call, and that the offense at issue here (reckless driving) posed a high risk of imminent death or injury. The court ends up saying that not all stops based on anonymous tips will be legal; it's going to depend on the facts:

In holding that detention was justified in the present case, we do not intend to imply that the extent of corroboration provided by Sergeant Russell will, as a general matter, be sufficient to establish reliability of anonymously provided information, but only that such degree of corroboration can be sufficient to establish such reliability when independent corroboration of the reported criminal

activity is not feasible because there is a high risk of imminent injury or death equivalent to the risk posed by a truck tractor and trailer being recklessly driven on the interstate. Furthermore, we are

compelled to emphasize that the content of the tip is of critical significance. Thus, the degree of corroboration that was sufficient to establish reliability in this case may not be sufficient where the

nature of the activity reported and any associated imminent danger cannot be reasonably inferred from the information conveyed by the informant. See State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891 (Tenn. 2008)

(holding that officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop suspect where stop was based solely on anonymous driver flashing her lights, waving her arms, and pointing at suspect’s vehicle).

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TSC/PDF/094/SC%20State%20v%20Jerry%20Lee%20Hanning%20OPN.pdf

[Guest Todd@CIS]

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...

Agreed.

[TMMT]

The US Supreme Court lets stand a Virginia court ruling that police must actually see erratic driving – and not just rely on anonymous tips – to stop a suspected drunk driver.

Supreme Court declines to set rule on drunk driving stops | csmonitor.com

Well it looks like Tennessee has got it wrong again (imagine that) I wish the USSC had of heard this case and upheld the lower court so this type of stuff would be nipped at the bud nation wide.

Edited October 21, 2009 by TMMT

[strickj]

Like the guy in this video?

(Man taken by police to hospital and forcibly catherized, even after breath test on the scene indicated he was sober).

The real world doesn't work as simply, fairly, and reasonably as you seem to imagine.

Never said the world worked perfectly.

You can always find cops who mistreat,or misuse powers at be.

The majority are not,and will not practice those wrongs so referencing those bad apples is not really a good argument.

If we allow those to be sited here,then the argument would be well sustained for doing away with all cops all together...after all,they're bad ones.

You could also argue that there are bad people with guns,so why have those. You can not judge,and regulate based on these few deviations from the common rule.

The argument for the potential misuse,and abuse isnt really a valid argument here either. All laws have seen a fair share of misuse,and abuse,but to argue that they all be thrown out,and done away with is asinine.

There have been people that have been wrongly accused,and convicted of child sex crimes,but I doubt anyone here would argue that we don't need those laws in place.

Anonymous tips are as old as the 911 system itself.Like Dave stated,all this does is gives them the power to pull someone over based on a tip. Previously a cop would follow you for a few blocks or whatever and wait for you to forget to use your blinker,etc before pulling you over.

If they want to pull you over,they will,and have well before this ruling by the TSC.

Even though there are a select few cops that have,and will abuse their powers...you gotta remember,here in the real world,a cop isn't out to just arrest anyone,for anything, at anytime..

[DaveTN]

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?!?"

No, being shortsighted is thinking that any of our founding fathers wanted to protect criminals or tie the hands of those enforcing the law.

I am not absolutely sure that I won’t wake up one day and find us in a Police state. But I am absolutely sure that I will not be wondering how it happened.

The criminals and the gangs do as they please while some stand around wringing their hands wondering if these criminals have done anything to warrant being stopped. Screw that, being a thug on the street wearing gang colors and tats… is PC. Stop them, pat them down for weapons and take the ones carrying to jail.

And being drunk enough that someone calls in on you… is PC. I worked fatal accidents that I still have nightmares over. If you are drunk and drive your rights end when you start the car. If someone puts my family in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm I am justified in killing that person. But some seem to think that if they do it with a car while they are drunk; their rights are more important than my family’s safety. Wrong… put their sorry azzes in jail.

[G27]

And being drunk enough that someone calls in on you… is PC. I worked fatal accidents that I still have nightmares over. If you are drunk and drive your rights end when you start the car. If someone puts my family in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm I am justified in killing that person. But some seem to think that if they do it with a car while they are drunk; their rights are more important than my family’s safety. Wrong… put their sorry azzes in jail.

Who's talking about drunk driver's rights? I'm talking about my rights, whether it be from a vindictive driver who thinks I was tailgating or from who knows what else. AFAIK, no one here is wanting to keep those who are breaking the law from beating caught and punished, but rather we aren't wanting our own rights eroded for a little safety.

Think of the Franklin quote, "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

[DaveTN]

Who's talking about drunk driver's rights? I'm talking about my rights,

We all are; that is what the case is about. Have your rights been violated?

whether it be from a vindictive driver who thinks I was tailgating or from who knows what else.

If a vindictive driver calls in on you now you will probably be stopped if a cop is in the area. And it’s been that way for 30 years I know of.

AFAIK, no one here is wanting to keep those who are breaking the law from beating caught and punished, but rather we aren't wanting our own rights eroded for a little safety.

That’s ridiculous. Stopping people that are driving erratically does not violate any right you have.

Think of the Franklin quote, "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

Franklin was a nutcase, but since we are quoting him; think of these….

“He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything elseâ€

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.â€

[Guest jimdigriz]

No, being shortsighted is thinking that any of our founding fathers wanted to protect criminals or tie the hands of those enforcing the law.

No one argues that they wanted to protect criminals. But that they wanted to (at least somewhat) tie the hands of those enforcing the law, is apparent from the 4th-8th amendments. A country where the police have free rein is also known as a police state.

Recently, police in Florida (I believe it was) were arguing that tinted windows should be outlawed, since they prevented (tied the hands of) cops who would not otherwise be able to tell whether those people were violating the law by not wearing seat belts. Are you in favor of such a law? If so, perhaps you would be in favor of requiring our houses to be made of all clear glass, so the cops could drive by and see whether we were abusing our children, smoking a joint, running a counterfeiting operation, etc.

[TMMT]

Which means more to you,

Moving to protect all of our rights and as a byproduct allowing some criminals to escape prosecution.

Or going after all criminals for all crimes and thereby violating some of our civil rights in the process?

[G27]

Nevermind.

Edited October 22, 2009 by crimsonaudio

[G27]

Which means more to you,

Moving to protect all of our rights and as a byproduct allowing some criminals to escape prosecution.

This.

Otherwise go ahead and kiss the 2nd (along with the rest) goodbye.

[Motasyco]

If I called in a tip on every vehicle I see that is unable to keep it between the lines (apparently, for many drivers, they're merely a suggestion of where to drive) or driving erratically, I would consider myself to be a danger for being on the phone all the time while driving. There can't possibly be that many drunk drivers out there. That must mean most erratic drivers either don't care about safe driving or are part of the "the rules don't apply to me" group. As a technical and safety instructor I probably pay too much attention to the way others drive but it does seem that driving skills are no longer required to obtain a license. Rant over.

I think a LEO following up on a tip is fine as long as that's not the only criteria for a stop. Get a tip, follow up on it. Make your own observation. If the driving observed warrants a stop, then I'm all for it. If not, leave it be. Pretty simple concept.

[Sean S.]

The problem here is the police found the truck PARKED. He was not driving. So the only way to go at an investigation was on the tip.

[Guest oldbs]

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

Hope this works out well for you. It hasn't for some.

[Motasyco]

The problem here is the police found the truck PARKED. He was not driving. So the only way to go at an investigation was on the tip.

I agree, that is a problem. If he was parked, there was no longer a threat to safety. But what's to say he doesn't get back behind the wheel before he's sober. If you're actually driving erratically, you need to be stopped. Drunk or not. If you are not driving erratically, even if you may have been, there should be no justification for contact. In the case cited, yes, the driver deserved what he got but how many tips will lead to a parked vehicle with a drunk sitting inside. I suspect most tips would lead to a vehicle still on the road and a LEO would have the opportunity to observe.

[TMMT]

Let me relate to you guys a story of an actual case I worked when I was an Internal Affairs Investigator for a very large agency located in another not too far away state, no very long ago.

It involved problems with anonymous tips.

It seemed some of our local uniforms loved making dope cases and in the area they patrolled it was more or less easy, dope was quite plentiful. Our uniforms would roam around the street looking for known dealers mobile in their vehicles. They would then use their personal cells to call other off duty officers who would use pre paid phones to drop an anonymous call to the non recorded, non emergency line to our dispatch. They would report vehicle as suspicious, give a good description of not only the car but the occupants and our dispatch would dutifully relay the info to area zone patrol.

Soon as the lookout hit the bolo box on our PDT's... BAM the officers would pull the vehicle over as a suspicious vehicle then immediately launch into an interdiction stop, which is what the courts call a pre textual stop and its a no no.

The officer had no real reasonable suspicion to stop the car, the foundation of the stop was based upon an anonymous tip and was more or less handled in the court system the same way a Confidential Informant would be handled.

If the officers found dope, which they usually did, the courts looked upon the tip as being a good tip, from a credible, yet unknown source who reported suspicious activity that officers acted on and the results of the detention was contraband and arrest.

Think something like this ruling can't be used in a bad way against all of you... you better think again.

[Fallguy]

I'd like to read more about the case. One thing is the LEO apparently didn't stop him, but found him already stopped. So not the same as making a stop based solely on the tip.

If during the course of the investigation the officer had PC based on the drivers demeanor etc...then ok.

But the statement of the justices ....that an anonymous tip in-and-of-itself is enough to make a stop is disturbing.

I believe SCOTUS has already ruled in case out of FL about a tip of someone having a handgun, that just a tip without specific info or some observation by the officer is not enough to detain someone.

[Fallguy]

Let me relate to you guys a story of an actual case I worked when I was an Internal Affairs Investigator for a very large agency located in another not too far away state, no very long ago.

It involved problems with anonymous tips.

It seemed some of our local uniforms loved making dope cases and in the area they patrolled it was more or less easy, dope was quite plentiful. Our uniforms would roam around the street looking for known dealers mobile in their vehicles. They would then use their personal cells to call other off duty officers who would use pre paid phones to drop an anonymous call to the non recorded, non emergency line to our dispatch. They would report vehicle as suspicious, give a good description of not only the car but the occupants and our dispatch would dutifully relay the info to area zone patrol.

Soon as the lookout hit the bolo box on our PDT's... BAM the officers would pull the vehicle over as a suspicious vehicle then immediately launch into an interdiction stop, which is what the courts call a pre textual stop and its a no no.

The officer had no real reasonable suspicion to stop the car, the foundation of the stop was based upon an anonymous tip and was more or less handled in the court system the same way a Confidential Informant would be handled.

If the officers found dope, which they usually did, the courts looked upon the tip as being a good tip, from a credible, yet unknown source who reported suspicious activity that officers acted on and the results of the detention was contraband and arrest.

Think something like this ruling can't be used in a bad way against all of you... you better think again.

TMMT....you must be wrong.....there are thousands of post on here stating that LEOs would never do any such thing. Of course most come from Non-LEOs and they are told they are just bashing....so not sure what to make of it coming for a LEO...

Ok...I was being sarcastic...

[strickj]

The problem here is the police found the truck PARKED. He was not driving. So the only way to go at an investigation was on the tip.

You can get a DUI while just sitting in a vehicle.Doesnt matter if you're moving.

Secondly,this guy was parked on the side of the interstate.That in of itself is against the law as far as I know.

Hope this works out well for you. It hasn't for some.

What? You mean people get into trouble for doing absolutely nothing? Noooo.....I'm sure if you interviewed 100 people locked up right now,they'd all say they were guilty of doing something \sarcasm

Edited October 22, 2009 by strickj