The U.S. Supreme Court agrees. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said Tuesday that making the call that lets police stop such vehicles passes constitutional muster. Such stops do not amount to an unreasonable search or seizure. That's true even if the arresting officer does not see the vehicle speeding or swaying while driving down the highway, the court said.
The ruling affirms a similar ruling from the California courts.
 |
| The deadly potential if police don't act. |
Officers spotted the vehicle and stopped it. They didn't see the driver speeding or swerving but when they pulled truck over, officers did see 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck bed. Two men were arrested and convicted of marijuana trafficking. They appealed under the 4th Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.
The high court turned them away, stepping back from an earlier ruling that police cannot rely solely on an anonymous tip to stop and search a pedestrian. Justices in that case worried that callers could unfairly target people for searches.
Certainly an argument can be made that a similar potential exists with motorists. An incident of road rage could become such a case if an upset driver drops a dime on another motorist.
However, there are two big differences. One, driving is a privilege not a right, unlike what most of us presume we have when simply strolling down a street. Two, the potential for harm to others is much greater with motor vehicles. Bumping into a person in the mall is different than bumping into a person with a car in the mall parking lot.
Yes, some minor inconvenience accompanies being stopped by police who've received a tip about a potential reckless or intoxicated driver. But caution suggests the need for police action. If the tip turns out to be false, so be it and the motorist can be sent along. If true, a driver with the potential to kill can be taken off the road.
“We have firmly rejected the argument that reasonable cause for an investigative stop can only be based on the officer’s personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.
This week's ruling came with the usual conservative-liberal spit with two exceptions. Justice Stephen Breyer, often voting with the court's liberal wing, joined the conservative wing. Justice Antonin Scalia, often seen as the leader of the court's conservative wing, sided with the dissenters.
“Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference,” Scalia wrote. “To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted ... stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either.”
Scalia's is an interesting argument, coming as it does from a man who in the past has had few qualms about government interference in many areas of citizens' private lives.
It seems reasonable to me for the police to be able to use a 911 call as justification for a traffic stop. I do, however, have a problem with the anonymous portion. First of all, it is the citizens duty to report the crime and to participate in the prosecution and second, the accused has the right to face his accuser.
ReplyDelete