R.I.P. 4th Amendment

R.I.P. 4th Amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

hot4bondage -> R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 7:06:10 AM)
On Tuesday, SCOTUS made a 5-4 decision on Navarette v. California. They ruled that an anonymous tip can be enough reason for the police to make a traffic stop. Justice Thomas sided with the conservative majority and wrote the majority opinion. However, Justice Scalia (also usually considered conservative) sided with the liberal dissent and wrote a scathing minority opinion, calling the decision a "freedom-destroying cocktail." My 5 minute Google search suggests that the entire internet seems to agree with this dissent. What really fries my eggs is Justice Thomas' statement that his decision was based on the "totality of circumstances." Let's take a look under the hood. The 911 caller accurately described the vehicle and location and alleged that the driver ran her off the road. The responding officer spotted the vehicle and followed it for 5 minutes, noting that the suspect's driving was "irreproachable." The officer pulled the driver over despite this observation. That's when the officer smelled marijuana and made an arrest. Does anyone here agree with the majority? Why? If not, what can we do about it? Hope that they revisit it in 10-20 years? Lobby for more conservative/liberal appointments?

BamaD -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 7:18:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage On Tuesday, SCOTUS made a 5-4 decision on Navarette v. California. They ruled that an anonymous tip can be enough reason for the police to make a traffic stop. Justice Thomas sided with the conservative majority and wrote the majority opinion. However, Justice Scalia (also usually considered conservative) sided with the liberal dissent and wrote a scathing minority opinion, calling the decision a "freedom-destroying cocktail." My 5 minute Google search suggests that the entire internet seems to agree with this dissent. What really fries my eggs is Justice Thomas' statement that his decision was based on the "totality of circumstances." Let's take a look under the hood. The 911 caller accurately described the vehicle and location and alleged that the driver ran her off the road. The responding officer spotted the vehicle and followed it for 5 minutes, noting that the suspect's driving was "irreproachable." The officer pulled the driver over despite this observation. That's when the officer smelled marijuana and made an arrest. Does anyone here agree with the majority? Why? If not, what can we do about it? Hope that they revisit it in 10-20 years? Lobby for more conservative/liberal appointments? looks like the cops were in a no-win situation. If they ignored the complaint and someone died later they would be blasted for ignoring the warning. I have seen traffic stops made over less.

DomKen -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 7:25:21 AM)
The officer had an accurate description of a car that had just run someone off the road. He has to assume that report is legitimate. So he had cause to make the stop. The smelling pot thing? Did they find pot in the car when they searched it? Did he test positive?

DaddySatyr -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 7:27:46 AM)
I haven't seen this, anywhere so I am going by: quote: The 911 caller accurately described the vehicle and location and alleged that the driver ran her off the road. The responding officer spotted the vehicle and followed it for 5 minutes, noting that the suspect's driving was "irreproachable." The officer pulled the driver over despite this observation. That's when the officer smelled marijuana and made an arrest. A caller called, described an incident and gave a very good description of the suspect (vehicle). Believe it or not, just the fact that the description was so good makes me think it was a decent stop. Forget the "irreproachable" driving the officer observed. One of the things taught to officers is that if someone is driving "too perfectly", they may have something to hide (I've been pulled over for driving the speed limit on a state highway, at night. The cop assumed I had bad credentials). I think the officer, based on a report and a good description, had every right to pull the car over. After all, if your neighbors are having a loud party and you call the local constabulary, isn't that enough to generate a patrol car to, at least, drive by and see if they hear the noise? That's "investigation". That's what the officer was doing when he pulled the suspect vehicle over. That he smelled marijuana is the driver's problem (and goes to support the "driving too perfectly" theory). In this particular case, the way you describe it, I don't see much of an issue. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

igor2003 -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 8:11:55 AM)
Let's say that I am an eye witness to a criminal act and see the perpetrator, whom I know as a really bad and dangerous person, leaving the scene. I COULD call in with the color, make, and model of car that they are driving. But I know that if I have to give my name, etc., that person could find out who I am and come after me for revenge for turning him in. So, instead of reporting what I know, I ignore it just to keep me and my family safe. For such instances, I can see the value in being able to make an anonymous report. But I can see extreme potential for misuse by both the police and civilians. I can see people with a personal grudge calling in an anonymous tip on someone they are at odds with...perhaps even after "planting" something in their car. Or I can see police, wanting to make a stop but not having a legitimate reason, so a cop with a burner phone makes an "anonymous" call in order to get the okay for the stop. Just to play devil's advocate...did the anonymous caller in the OP actually get run off the road? Or did she have a grudge against the person in the car she called in about? If she was anonymous, then how do the police know whether it is genuine, or a grudge? The cop said he could see no problem with the person's driving. If he was driving so well, then did he really run someone off the road? So, while under legitimate circumstances I can see an anonymous call as providing probable cause, I think there is just too much opportunity for abuse to allow it.

BamaD -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 8:19:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Let's say that I am an eye witness to a criminal act and see the perpetrator, whom I know as a really bad and dangerous person, leaving the scene. I COULD call in with the color, make, and model of car that they are driving. But I know that if I have to give my name, etc., that person could find out who I am and come after me for revenge for turning him in. So, instead of reporting what I know, I ignore it just to keep me and my family safe. For such instances, I can see the value in being able to make an anonymous report. But I can see extreme potential for misuse by both the police and civilians. I can see people with a personal grudge calling in an anonymous tip on someone they are at odds with...perhaps even after "planting" something in their car. Or I can see police, wanting to make a stop but not having a legitimate reason, so a cop with a burner phone makes an "anonymous" call in order to get the okay for the stop. Just to play devil's advocate...did the anonymous caller in the OP actually get run off the road? Or did she have a grudge against the person in the car she called in about? If she was anonymous, then how do the police know whether it is genuine, or a grudge? The cop said he could see no problem with the person's driving. If he was driving so well, then did he really run someone off the road? So, while under legitimate circumstances I can see an anonymous call as providing probable cause, I think there is just too much opportunity for abuse to allow it. While I see the same questions about an anonymous tip nothing would have happened if the cop hadn't smelled marijuana.

igor2003 -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 8:25:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Let's say that I am an eye witness to a criminal act and see the perpetrator, whom I know as a really bad and dangerous person, leaving the scene. I COULD call in with the color, make, and model of car that they are driving. But I know that if I have to give my name, etc., that person could find out who I am and come after me for revenge for turning him in. So, instead of reporting what I know, I ignore it just to keep me and my family safe. For such instances, I can see the value in being able to make an anonymous report. But I can see extreme potential for misuse by both the police and civilians. I can see people with a personal grudge calling in an anonymous tip on someone they are at odds with...perhaps even after "planting" something in their car. Or I can see police, wanting to make a stop but not having a legitimate reason, so a cop with a burner phone makes an "anonymous" call in order to get the okay for the stop. Just to play devil's advocate...did the anonymous caller in the OP actually get run off the road? Or did she have a grudge against the person in the car she called in about? If she was anonymous, then how do the police know whether it is genuine, or a grudge? The cop said he could see no problem with the person's driving. If he was driving so well, then did he really run someone off the road? So, while under legitimate circumstances I can see an anonymous call as providing probable cause, I think there is just too much opportunity for abuse to allow it. While I see the same questions about an anonymous tip nothing would have happened if the cop hadn't smelled marijuana. The smelling of the marijuana was after the fact. The question is, was an anonymous call a legitimate reason to make the stop in the first place.

MercTech -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 8:35:55 AM)
Is a traffic stop an unreasonable search? Gad, so many jurisdictions profile vehicles to stop I always thought any stop would fly in the courts. Want to get stopped? Just drive north out of the Florida keys at 2am with out of state plates.

BamaD -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 9:03:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Let's say that I am an eye witness to a criminal act and see the perpetrator, whom I know as a really bad and dangerous person, leaving the scene. I COULD call in with the color, make, and model of car that they are driving. But I know that if I have to give my name, etc., that person could find out who I am and come after me for revenge for turning him in. So, instead of reporting what I know, I ignore it just to keep me and my family safe. For such instances, I can see the value in being able to make an anonymous report. But I can see extreme potential for misuse by both the police and civilians. I can see people with a personal grudge calling in an anonymous tip on someone they are at odds with...perhaps even after "planting" something in their car. Or I can see police, wanting to make a stop but not having a legitimate reason, so a cop with a burner phone makes an "anonymous" call in order to get the okay for the stop. Just to play devil's advocate...did the anonymous caller in the OP actually get run off the road? Or did she have a grudge against the person in the car she called in about? If she was anonymous, then how do the police know whether it is genuine, or a grudge? The cop said he could see no problem with the person's driving. If he was driving so well, then did he really run someone off the road? So, while under legitimate circumstances I can see an anonymous call as providing probable cause, I think there is just too much opportunity for abuse to allow it. While I see the same questions about an anonymous tip nothing would have happened if the cop hadn't smelled marijuana. The smelling of the marijuana was after the fact. The question is, was an anonymous call a legitimate reason to make the stop in the first place. As I pointed out in my first post, if they had ignored it and the next time someone died, they would have been at fault. Yes I know that if that had happened we wouldn't know about this but if it hadn't been for the marijuana we wouldn't know either.

igor2003 -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 9:19:20 AM)
I have often thought that there are so many laws on the books that if the police want to stop you, they can probably find a reason. I was stopped one day because the ball hitch on my bumper partially obscured the license plate. Not really a problem, and it is at least somewhat understandable, but in the area where I live it is mostly rural farm land, and ball hitches on bumpers are a VERY common occurrence, and normally they don't care. The cop explained to me that that was the reason for the stop and though he wasn't concerned about seeing my registration and proof of insurance, he was very adamant about getting me out of the vehicle so he could actually show me what he was talking about. I told him that I understood what he was saying very well, but still he insisted. I finally realized that showing me the ball hitch in front of the license plate wasn't his real reason. He either wanted to get me on his dash camera, or he wanted someone in his car to get a look at me. So I complied and got out, after which he let me go. Watching the local news that evening they reported that a bank had been robbed, and a vehicle leaving the scene was somewhat similar to mine. However, they also reported that the person had been caught about an hour before I was stopped. So I think the police have plenty of tools at their disposal for making stops without needing to rely on questionable "anonymous" phone tips.

igor2003 -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 9:27:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD As I pointed out in my first post, if they had ignored it and the next time someone died, they would have been at fault. Yes I know that if that had happened we wouldn't know about this but if it hadn't been for the marijuana we wouldn't know either. Fuck the marijuana...that isn't the question at hand. What about that do you not understand? If you want to argue THAT question, start another thread. The question is whether an anonymous call is sufficient probable cause to stop someone. If I call the cops anonymously and tell them I just saw you run someone off the road...even though you didn't do that...is that sufficient probably cause for them to stop you? Can you not see the potential for abuse?

DaddySatyr -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 9:33:06 AM)
It is the job of the police to "investigate" (street cops don't do too much of this) reports of possible crimes. An accusation doesn't make the accused guilty. But, this raises the question of how do we define "guilty". How are we to determine "guilt"? Should we skip this part of the process and go straight to indictment? Trial? The police, contrary to popular, modern-day mythology, are an after-the-fact agency. Their job is NOT to "prevent" crime; it is to investigate reports and (hopefully) bring perpetrators to trial/judgment. It is their very edict. Are their false reports? Of course there are. There always have been. Does anyone remember "The Crucible"? Even if this person intended for the driver of the car to get busted for smoking weed while (or very shortly before) driving, aren't there motor vehicle codes against that? Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

DaddySatyr -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 9:35:25 AM)
9-1-1 calls haven't been "anonymous" in almost a decade, given today's technology. quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Fuck the marijuana...that isn't the question at hand. What about that do you not understand? If you want to argue THAT question, start another thread. The question is whether an anonymous call is sufficient probable cause to stop someone. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

DesideriScuri -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 10:21:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Is a traffic stop an unreasonable search? Gad, so many jurisdictions profile vehicles to stop I always thought any stop would fly in the courts. Want to get stopped? Just drive north out of the Florida keys at 2am with out of state plates. I got pulled over on a Sunday the day after getting a new vehicle. I wasn't driving erratically. I followed all rules of the road. My plate was run by a cop behind me who was new. Why he ran my plate, I don't know. He stopped me because my plates "belonged" to a different vehicle than what they were on. When I explained the situation (and luckily had proof of being the owner listed on the plate registration) and he understood that the system likely hadn't updated yet, I was let go. The officer also mentioned that me and my vehicle weren't what they were looking for anyway. As much as I'd love to have Jedi mind powers, I didn't recall attempting to use them, and really started wondering why my plates were run in the first place (the best thing I could come up with was that he, being a new cop, was just "practicing" using the system).

BamaD -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 10:26:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Is a traffic stop an unreasonable search? Gad, so many jurisdictions profile vehicles to stop I always thought any stop would fly in the courts. Want to get stopped? Just drive north out of the Florida keys at 2am with out of state plates. I got pulled over on a Sunday the day after getting a new vehicle. I wasn't driving erratically. I followed all rules of the road. My plate was run by a cop behind me who was new. Why he ran my plate, I don't know. He stopped me because my plates "belonged" to a different vehicle than what they were on. When I explained the situation (and luckily had proof of being the owner listed on the plate registration) and he understood that the system likely hadn't updated yet, I was let go. The officer also mentioned that me and my vehicle weren't what they were looking for anyway. As much as I'd love to have Jedi mind powers, I didn't recall attempting to use them, and really started wondering why my plates were run in the first place (the best thing I could come up with was that he, being a new cop, was just "practicing" using the system). Or maybe being a new cop he was a bit gung ho

DaddySatyr -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 10:39:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Is a traffic stop an unreasonable search? Gad, so many jurisdictions profile vehicles to stop I always thought any stop would fly in the courts. Want to get stopped? Just drive north out of the Florida keys at 2am with out of state plates. I got pulled over on a Sunday the day after getting a new vehicle. I wasn't driving erratically. I followed all rules of the road. My plate was run by a cop behind me who was new. Why he ran my plate, I don't know. He stopped me because my plates "belonged" to a different vehicle than what they were on. When I explained the situation (and luckily had proof of being the owner listed on the plate registration) and he understood that the system likely hadn't updated yet, I was let go. The officer also mentioned that me and my vehicle weren't what they were looking for anyway. As much as I'd love to have Jedi mind powers, I didn't recall attempting to use them, and really started wondering why my plates were run in the first place (the best thing I could come up with was that he, being a new cop, was just "practicing" using the system). OMG! When I lived in New Jerky, I owned a Mercury Sable (duplicate of the Ford Taurus) in what Ford calls "Champagne" which you all might recognize as kind of a "tan". I did a look up, at the time and found that there were about two million of them on the road (registered and insured). I pulled into the parking lot of a Best Buy only to have an East Brunswick Squad car screech to halt, behind me. The cops did a "felony" stop on me. When we got everything all straightened out, I asked: "Why did you stop me?" Their answer was that my car "fit a description". I answered: "so do a few thousand others, in the state." They didn't take too kindly to that. Was I embarrassed? Sure. Was I a bit scared? Of course. Weapons were drawn. Was I inconvenienced? Yeah, by about 15 minutes. I wish it hadn't happened, obviously, but what else are the police supposed to do? Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

mnottertail -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 11:46:46 AM)
E911 calls have never been anonymous. I set-up New York (actually New England).

hot4bondage -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 12:17:14 PM)
Interesting that the first three replies here all assume only two choices, either ignore the complaint or make the stop. There is a middle ground, and the officer took it. He followed the suspect for 5 minutes. You even referred to that middle ground in your "loud party" analogy. The officer drives by to see if he can hear the noise himself. That's not nearly as intrusive as going to the door, especially if he doesn't hear any loud noises.

DaddySatyr -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 12:33:34 PM)
Since mine was the third reply, I don't see how you can say I "missed" the middle ground and then point out that I did, indeed, mention it. The police officer followed the suspect vehicle for five minutes and based upon his observation, he thought a stop was warranted. What am I missing, this time? Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

hot4bondage -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (4/24/2014 12:42:29 PM)
In this case, the caller identified herself, but neither she nor the 911 operator were at the suppression hearing, so the tip was treated as anonymous. Of course someone could just use another phone or wave a cop down on the street if they really wanted to remain anonymous.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875