Is a caller tip sufficient cause to stop suspected drunk drivers? Supremes weigh in, sort of.
Over a strong dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the high court let stand a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that held a police officer can follow but cannot stop a suspected drunk driver’s car until he sees it do something suspicious, such as swerve in a lane….
The Supreme Court’s action is not a formal ruling, and it does not require other states to follow Virginia’s lead. But the case is likely to encourage more legal challenges to police stops that rely solely on anonymous tips.
The Virginia ruling freed Joseph Harris of Richmond, who was arrested early one morning after a caller had reported his green Nissan Altima was headed south on Meadowbridge Road. The tip included a partial license plate as well as his name.
Harris stumbled out of his car and was obviously intoxicated when the officer tried to question him. Nonetheless, the Virginia high court said it was an “unreasonable search” to stop and question a motorist based entirely on a caller’s tip.
Most state courts, including those in California and Illinois, have upheld car searches based on a tip from a caller, so long as the vehicle matches the description given.
The response from one local county sheriff, here, has been to ask people to continue to follow the drunk they just reported – in a safe manner, don’t attempt to interfere with him.
When a deputy catches up with you, you can let them know – they ask you to stay online with your cell – if you will testify to the dangerous behavior that prompted the call. If not, they will thank you and carry on with following the idiot.
If Yes – they will then pull the driver over.
moss
October 21, 2009 at 6:45 am
What utter nonsense.
Aren’t cops in the States allowed to stop any vehicle they choose, just to ask for proof the driver is licensed and the vehicle is properly registered and insured? That’s kind of a basic part of their job, isn’t it?
If so, this is just one more fool of a judge.
If not, it finally explains why, on reality police television shows, no-one ever has a driver’s license or insurance and usually the vehicle is stolen.
If not, I’m so relieved I never have to drive on a highway or even walk across a city street down there, ever again!
It must be like driving in Québec and dodging vehicles in Montréal, only you have to do it every damned day of the week!
Cinaedh
October 21, 2009 at 6:56 am
Aren’t cops in the States allowed to stop any vehicle they choose, just to ask for proof the driver is licensed and the vehicle is properly registered and insured?
Legally, no. The only time they may just stop a vehicle is if it is a commercial vehicle and that is only to verify their logs and cargo.
Of course, if you weaved just a little bit, or strayed onto the center line, or were a little wide in your turn, … , the cop now has reasonable suspicion to pull you over. Even if he is the only one who saw it.
Many of the “Police Reality” shows are re-enactments. I’ve met actors who’ve been in them. Others purposely go after poor people that can’t afford lawyers that would get the charges tossed. The right wing “Law and Order” crowd eat them up as justification for having so many people behind bars in this country.
Remember, it is the sensational that gets reported. No one care about the mundane.
Mr. Fusion
October 21, 2009 at 7:13 am
How silly!
So the only way a U.S. citizen can feel confident all those other maniacs on the road are actually competent to drive the vehicles they’re driving and/or have insurance for the vehicles they’re driving is when it’s already way too late to do anything about it and some idjit has already crashed into them?
If I was an American, I might want to rethink that one.
Cinaedh
October 21, 2009 at 7:28 am
I am so against drunk driving I find the reasonableness hard to differentiate from my own bias.
If a citizen sees someone impaired drive off I do strongly believe they should report that to the police. I think the same applies to some idiot wearing camo pants, black boots, no shirt, a bandanna tied as a head band, and carrying an assault weapon with several magazines. It would also apply to witnessing someone break a store window and help themselves to the display.
The intrusion of stopping a driver to ask if they have been drinking is minimal. The length of the delay is usually very short and should not require the driver identifying himself unless they are being arrested. The damage to society caused by drunks driving into other vehicles is frightening.
Let’s all do our bit to stop drunk driving.
Mr. Fusion
October 21, 2009 at 7:03 am