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

[DaveTN]

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.

Good grief that’s a lot of work for a traffic stop. Did your Officers not know the vehicle code? If I saw a known drug dealer I wanted to stop I just followed them until they committed a traffic violation; wouldn’t take more than a few blocks.

[DaveTN]

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?

I never (that I can remember) found this to be a big problem. I did my job and never violated anyone’s rights.

When you were a Police Officer working the streets did you find this to be a big problem for you?

[Guest canynracer]

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?

If I called the police because I SAW someone break into the house, I would certainly expect the police to respond. Re-read his question...he SAW someone break in...

If YOU see it, then you are just as good a witness as an officer SEEING it...you have no duty to respond...cops DO

If I am driving and I see someone driving like an idiot, hell YES I want the cops to pull him over and see whats going on.

[Fallguy]

If I called the police because I SAW someone break into the house, I would certainly expect the police to respond. Re-read his question...he SAW someone break in...

If YOU see it, then you are just as good a witness as an officer SEEING it...you have no duty to respond...cops DO

If I am driving and I see someone driving like an idiot, hell YES I want the cops to pull him over and see whats going on.

That is not always legally true.

Courts have ruled that if one LEO sees something and relates it to other LEOs then the other LEOs don't have to observe what was related to them for themselves. But that doesn't necessarily hold true if the report if from a non-LEO.

If someone calls and says they see someone driving wreckless...I think we all want the police to try and find the car. However the LEO should observe the vehicle himself. If during the officers observation the driver/vehicle doesn't do anything wrong, then they shouldn't be stopped just because someone who is unknown and is not going to testify said they saw something. If the officer sees the same reported behavior for himself, then by all means...make a stop.

Remember most traffic violations are misdemeanor, LEOs can only arrest or issue a citation in lieu of an arrest for misdemeanors that occur in their presence.

[Guest Todd@CIS]

Courts have ruled that if one LEO sees something and relates it to other LEOs then the other LEOs don't have to observe what was related to them for themselves. But that doesn't necessarily hold true if the report if from a non-LEO.

If someone calls and says they see someone driving wreckless...I think we all want the police to try and find the car. However the LEO should observe the vehicle himself. If during the officers observation the driver/vehicle doesn't do anything wrong, then they shouldn't be stopped just because someone who is unknown and is not going to testify said they saw something. If the officer sees the same reported behavior for himself, then by all means...make a stop.

+1

This is how we conduct business.

[TMMT]

.....

[Fallguy]

Excite News - Roberts speaks out on drunk driving case

Oct 20, 12:39 PM (ET)

BY JESSE J. HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out in vain Tuesday against a lower court ruling he says will "grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve'" that could potentially end someone's life.

Roberts wanted the Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling but he failed to persuade enough of his colleagues. The court declined to hear an appeal from Virginia officials who had their drunk driving conviction of Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr. thrown out by that state's Supreme Court. Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

The majority of the justices did not say why they did not take the case, but Roberts in a written dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Virginia court's decision will put people in danger.

"The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road - by which time it may be too late," Roberts wrote.

Roberts noted that close to 13,000 people die in alcohol-related car crashes a year, which equals to one death every 40 minutes.

Roberts said a majority of the courts have said it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure to pull over drunk drivers based on anonymous tips from programs like the "Drunk Busters Hotline."

But some courts, including some in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia in saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.

The Supreme Court should have stepped in and made the rule clear, Roberts said.

"The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can be legally pulled over by 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."

Richmond, Va., police were called on the morning of Dec. 31, 2005, and told that an intoxicated Harris was driving a green Altima down the street. A police officer saw Harris drive slowly through an intersection where he didn't have to stop and put on his brake lights well in advance of a red light.

Harris then pulled over to the side of the road, where the police officer smelled alcohol on his breath. Harris also failed the field sobriety tests, but the police officer did not see him break any traffic laws.

Harris was convicted of driving while intoxicated, but the Virginia Supreme Court threw out his conviction. The court said since the police officer did not see erratic driving behavior like swerving, there was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop.

Harris's lawyer said the Supreme Court should let that decision stand because "society's reasonable expectation of privacy requires some facts to support the tipster's allegation that the driver was intoxicated."

If that's correct and the Fourth Amendment bans the use of anonymous tips on drunk drivers without police verification, "the dangerous consequences of this rule are unavoidable," Roberts said. "But the police should have every legitimate tool at their disposal for getting drunk drivers off the road. I would grant certiorari to determine if this is one of them."

The case is Virginia v. Harris, 08-1385.

Seems like it going to be a state by state issue whether an anonymous tip is enough for a stop.

...and in TN it apparently is.

[TMMT]

Tennessee has a bad habit of ending up on the wrong side of the Appeals Courts, with its poorly written laws and the way those laws are enforced.

I work with the States Attorneys Office alot and I have had more than one tell me that Tennessee loses more cases on appeal than most other states in this appellate circuit

[Guest Todd@CIS]

Supreme Court declines to set rule on drunk driving stops

By Warren Richey

Christian Science Monitor

RICHMOND, Va. — The US Supreme Court has let stand a ruling in Virginia that police officers must personally observe erratic driving before stopping a suspected drunken driver.

On Tuesday, the high court declined to take up an appeal involving a Richmond motorist who was pulled over by a police officer based on an anonymous tip that he was driving under the influence of alcohol.

The issue in the case, Virginia v. Harris, was whether the officer was justified in confronting the driver with a roadside sobriety test, or whether he should have waited until Harris' driving gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving independent of the anonymous tip.

The case stems from a December 2005 telephone call received by police. The caller said that an intoxicated driver named Joseph Harris was driving an Altima, southbound on Meadowbridge Road in Richmond. The caller gave a partial license plate number.

Officer Claude Picard of the Richmond Police Department soon located an Altima being driven by a man with a license plate similar to the number offered by the caller.

The officer followed Mr. Harris and watched as the motorist slowed down before crossing an intersection where he had the right of way, and slowed down again 50 feet before reaching a red stop light. At other times the car was traveling at the stipulated speed limit of 25 mph.

Once through the intersection, Harris pulled his car over to the shoulder and stopped. Officer Picard pulled up behind Harris and activated his lights and siren.

The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on Harris' breath and noticed that his speech was slurred. Picard administered a field sobriety test. Harris failed. He was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Harris had been convicted of the same offense twice before.

At trial, Harris' lawyer argued that the charge should be dropped because the police officer lacked the level of reasonable suspicion needed to justify the traffic stop. The trial court rejected the argument and Harris was convicted and sentenced to serve 90 days in prison. A state appeals court affirmed the decision.

The Virginia Supreme Court voted 4-3 to throw out the conviction. The state high court said the anonymous tip did not provide enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing to overcome Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The police officer must personally observe criminal activity before an investigative stop is justified, the Virginia court ruled.

The Virginia attorney general's office appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court, urging the high court to overturn the opinion and make clear that in cases involving suspected drunk drivers, police officers are justified in conducting a brief traffic stop.

The Supreme Court turned down the appeal without comment. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice Roberts said a sharp disagreement had emerged in federal and state courts over this particular Fourth Amendment issue. Most courts have upheld the police stop, but some have ruled for the motorist. "The conflict is clear and the stakes are high," he wrote.

"The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can legally be pulled over by 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."

[Guest Muttling]

I disagree with the contention that it was a stop strictly based on an anonymous tip.

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.

It's illegal to park on an exit ramp. We also don't know the details of the driver's behavior when confronted for being illegally parked.

Sounds to me like the officer went looking on the basis of the tip and observed a situation that he would have addressed even if he saw it without the tip.

[Fallguy]

I disagree with the contention that it was a stop strictly based on an anonymous tip.

It's illegal to park on an exit ramp. We also don't know the details of the driver's behavior when confronted for being illegally parked.

Sounds to me like the officer went looking on the basis of the tip and observed a situation that he would have addressed even if he saw it without the tip.

I tend to agree.

I don't think this case (TN case) directly addresses if a tip is enough to make a stop.

[DaveTN]

I don’t think this will really be an issue for most cops. If you roll up on the car that has been called in it won’t take long to find a reason to stop it. The real issue is going to come into play when someone dies because the Officer was waiting for a reason (other than the tip) to stop the vehicle.

But it appears that the SCOTUS is going to do the same thing with this they have done with the 2nd…. Leave it up to the state courts and Federal Districts.