On October
1, 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Navarette v. California, the case questions whether
an anonymous tip about a motorist’s reckless driving is enough reasonable
suspicion for a police officer to pull over that motorist, without the officer first
corroborating the tip with his own investigation.[1] This case is timely considering the present division
among state and federal courts on this issue.
Four years
ago, the Court declined to hear an appeal from Virginia officials over the same
issue, after the Virginia State Supreme Court sided with a defendant who was
arrested after police received an anonymous tip that he was driving while
intoxicated.[2]
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented,
stating that the “stakes are high” and explained why the Court should have
agreed to hear the case. Specifically,
Roberts stated that the Virginia decision grants “drunk drivers ‘one free
swerve’ before they can legally be pulled over by police” and explained the
potential unfortunate consequences of an officer being powerless to pull
someone over, “even for a quick check.”[3] Now, Roberts will have his chance to review
the issue with his fellow justices, deciding the important issue of whether
anonymous tips can be constitutionally sufficient justification for an officer
to pull over a motorist who is alleged to be driving recklessly.
The
present case, Navarette v. California,[4] involves two brothers who
pled guilty to transporting marijuana after California Highway Patrol officers
pulled over their silver Ford 150 pickup based on an anonymous call reporting
the motorist’s alleged reckless driving. In this case, the anonymous caller stated that
the vehicle had run the caller off the road, and identified the vehicle by its
model, color, and license plate number. The officers did not personally observe any erratic
driving prior to stopping the vehicle. Once
the brothers were pulled over, however, the officers searched the truck, finding
four large bags of marijuana, and arrested driver Lorenzo Prado Navarette and
passenger Jose Prado Navarette. The
Navarette brothers pled guilty and are now appealing their convictions. The brothers are arguing that the traffic
stop violated their constitutional rights, based on prior precedents establishing
that anonymous tips by themselves ordinarily are not sufficient for police to
detain or search someone.
It is well
established that anonymous tips alone are not sufficient for creating the
reasonable suspicion necessary for conducting a stop.[5] Rather, the officer must corroborate the
information provided in the anonymous tip by performing an independent police
investigation. Additionally, it is also
well established that an officer may not pull over a motorist without an
objective basis for doing so.[6] Notably, even when stops are pretextual, the
officer must first witness the motorist commit a traffic violation, however
minor, before being legally justified in pulling over the motorist.[7]
The policy
behind the corroboration requirement for anonymous tips is clear: we do not
want to permit police officers to conduct stops, seizures, or searches on
innocent people, as their constitutional liberties are at stake. Therefore, when police officers want to make a
stop based on an anonymous informant’s tip, they must have corroboration in
order to ensure that verification of the tip’s reliability has been performed.[8] Courts have often noted that independent
police corroboration is particularly crucial when dealing with anonymous
informants because, unlike with known informants, the veracity and knowledge of
the anonymous informant is unknown.[9] Additionally, courts have previously held
that merely identifying a person that matches an informant’s physical description
and location of a person will not suffice for corroboration.[10] Further, simply because the informant’s tip turned
out to be correct does not suggest that the officers, prior to their stop, had
a reasonable basis for suspecting a person to be engaging in unlawful conduct.[11]
Accordingly,
the crucial question for the Justices to decide in the Navarette case is whether anonymous tips about reckless or drunk
driving should be treated differently than other anonymous tips. While the argument in favor of preventing accidents
due to drunk or reckless driving is strong, the importance of upholding the
constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures would seemingly
outweigh the contention for allowing the exception. When innocent persons’
liberties are at stake, the Supreme Court should find that preserving this
right is more crucial than preventing the rare instances in which an anonymous
tip is accurate. Above all, holding the
police to their investigative duties, rather than allowing them to perform
arbitrary stops based on anonymous tips, is a crucial duty that the Court must
maintain. Otherwise, innocent persons may be stopped simply because the personal
agenda or vendetta of an anonymous person “says so.”
Monika Mastellone
Senior Staffer, Criminal Law Practitioner
Image by John L Marino, via Wikimedia Commons.
[2] Virginia v. Harris, 558 U.S. 978, 130 S. Ct. 10, 175 L. Ed.
2d 322, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 7645, 78 U.S.L.W. 3236 (U.S. 2009).
[3] Id. (Chief Justice
Roberts, dissenting).
[6] See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806
(1996); Duckett v. United States, 886
A.2d 548, 551 (D.C. 2005).
[7] Whren, 517 U.S. at 806.
[8] Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).
[9] Id.
[10] See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 272
(2000) (holding that police officers who identified a person based on the
informant’s description of location and apparel worn by the suspect, was not
sufficient corroboration).
ReplyDeleteAndrew Kartchner
• a day ago △ ▽
−
Remember that the Supreme Court, and courts in many states, have shown a willingness to change the rules of criminal procedure a bit when drunk driving is involved. The prime example of this is in the Supreme Court's checkpoints doctrine, which allows checkpoints for drunk driving but not for drug trafficking. The Court in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz reasoned that the great hazards of drunk driving justify the slight intrusion into privacy induced by checkpoint stops. But the Court in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond limited that holding to areas of public danger, holding that catching drug traffickers does not protect the public the way stopping drunk drivers does. If this concern for drunk driving continues into the Navarrette case, I expect the Court to once again give police more latitude to stop drunk drivers using anonymous tips than they would otherwise have. (Although the Navarrette case is about drugs, the defendants were reported to have been driving recklessly, which is the quintessential indicator of drunk driving.).
You can read my article on the topic at 25 Reg. U. L. Rev. 185 (2012) or on SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338531
Nice post! A drink driving offense can be imposed on public roads and private properties. A person who is not actually driving but is over the alcohol limit and sitting on the driver’s seat while the keys are in the ignition may also get in trouble with the law. Thanks for sharing..
ReplyDeleteAssault Charges
Nice post! If you are drinking and driving you are committing a crime if your blood alcohol level is over the legal limit. A drink driving offense can be imposed on public roads and private properties. Thanks for sharing..
ReplyDeleteClick Here
ReplyDeleteGo To Traffic School [www.topnotchdrivingschool.com] even guarantees full money back, if learners are not content with the course. The Traffic driving School Provider, which covers nearly all the jurisdictions in Oxnard, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Simi Valley,
provides courses met by standards and issues a certificate upon course completion.
Legal Driving Age in California
While for some drivers the thought of driving defensively can sound demeaning, the fact is that defensive driving can often be the difference between becoming involved in, or avoiding, a fatal accident. Most drivers are good drivers, and a few drivers are exceptional drivers. But even exceptional drivers can be helpless at the hands of reckless or drunk drivers who happen to cross their paths.
ReplyDeleteMany small business owners, me included, are quite worried about the potential legalization of marijuana in California. If marijuana is legalized, and since many people into using it, more workers may come to work when they're high in the future (at least this is a fear), although most users will disagree. However if more workers do come to work high, well, this might cause more incidents and accidents in the workplace, and thus, could potentially send workers comp skyrocketing.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhen you square measure learning the way to pass your driving test, nothing beats behind the wheel coaching.
i'd powerfully advocate that you simply use the services of a professional driving instructor. it's accepted that having
relations or shut friends teach you to drive results in lots of arguments
Legal Driving Age in California
I found the website when searching for "Laws in US" and found that this blog is informative and useful for me. Thank you for sharing such an inovative idea.
ReplyDelete