If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Supreme Court gives police the power to execute searches based solely on anonymous tips. There is no way that this can backfire   (npr.org) divider line 510
    More: Hero, executive search, Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Justice Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor  
•       •       •

12603 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2014 at 8:05 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



510 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-23 07:39:08 AM  
Joining Scalia in dissent were three of the court's more liberal members: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Joining Thomas in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer, who defected from the court's liberal bloc to provide the fifth and decisive vote.

dmsblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-23 08:03:50 AM  
Scalia apparently understands that a lot of people would be giving the police anonymous tips about him.
 
2014-04-23 08:08:46 AM  
I'm genuinely amazed that Thomas' opinion differed from Scalia's on this.
 
2014-04-23 08:09:05 AM  
Thanks a lot Bush 1 for that POS Clarence Thomas.

Saw him at work on the court a couple years ago. It was disgusting to see him on that bench in that robe. Hopefully he will suffer a massive stroke soon.
 
2014-04-23 08:09:05 AM  
Report, Citizen...
 
2014-04-23 08:09:47 AM  
Oh yeah, that can only end well.
 
2014-04-23 08:09:49 AM  
On one had, this frightens me because it has already been abused by the NYPD, who would call in their own tips. ON the other hand, this actually covers someone who calls in a deal. I'm not sure if this is a win or not.
 
2014-04-23 08:10:02 AM  

naughtyrev: Scalia apparently understands that a lot of people would be giving the police anonymous tips about him.


Funny you mention that, but there was a whispered rumor around the DC area that a known conservative Supreme Court justice has a massive stash of child porn hidden in his house. If none of them have anything to hide, there shouldn't be a problem with a thorough search.
 
2014-04-23 08:10:48 AM  
All that bullshiat you people fought for and yammer about all the time has pretty much evapourated right in front of you in the past decade or so.
 
2014-04-23 08:10:50 AM  
911? Yeah, I just saw Clarence Thomas beating off in a black Lincoln Town Car.
 
2014-04-23 08:11:39 AM  
Headline is to article as eel is to goldfish.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip.

In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster.
The five-justice court majority disagreed, and in so doing gave police new authority to rely on anonymous tipsters.
The court has long held that officers can make stops based on anonymous tips, but the information in those tips must provide enough detail to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, Thomas, the author of the majority opinion, concluded that because the 911 tipster said she had been forced off the road, she was an eyewitness, and that police could infer that there was reason to believe the truck driver was drunk.

Relying on 911 tipsters is reasonable, he said, because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers," and the calls can be recorded.

This is a far cry from "an anonymous tip lets me search your house". But hey, keep searchin that chicken.
 
2014-04-23 08:11:56 AM  
I don't fear false reports as much as I fear the erosion of the idea of probable cause.
 
2014-04-23 08:12:03 AM  
This is really just removing one step from a cop's process. Now they don't need to bother with calling a K9 unit to pretend that the dog smelled something in order to establish cause.
 
2014-04-23 08:12:20 AM  
Hero tag?  I'm thinking submitter is smoking crack.  Time to make an anonymous tip...
 
2014-04-23 08:12:38 AM  
What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?
 
2014-04-23 08:15:20 AM  
PreMortem:

[dmsblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com image 245x183]

I know everyone on the intertubes thinks Thomas and Scalia are joined at the Scalia's butthole like some kind of geriatric human centipede gone wrong, but the truth is that Scalia is a smart man, if a curmudgeonly asshole. Thomas seems to have one mode of operation, and that's trying to be the biggest asshole in the room.

So if you see Thomas' face attached to Scalia's rear in an opinion, it's not because he even necessarily likes the man or his jurisprudence, it's because he needs to recharge.
 
2014-04-23 08:15:22 AM  

Epic Fap Session: 911? Yeah, I just saw Clarence Thomas beating off in a black Lincoln Town Car.


The DC police will be searching for the smoking Coke can.
 
2014-04-23 08:15:40 AM  

CatfoodSpork: What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?


your ability to perform a 3rd grader level thinking "outside the box" argument
automatically qualifies you for a higher level calling than our current USSC shiatbags.
 
2014-04-23 08:15:49 AM  

CatfoodSpork: What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?


I'm guessing the cops' knowledge of ANI/ALI and E911. (They know your phone number and location when you call.)

"Anonymous" tip just means they don't have verify anything before acting.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 08:16:31 AM  

CatfoodSpork: What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?


Nothing.

Phillip K. Dick would be proud.

Well... not proud.  Paranoid and scared.
 
2014-04-23 08:16:37 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Epic Fap Session: 911? Yeah, I just saw Clarence Thomas beating off in a black Lincoln Town Car.

The DC police will be searching for the smoking Coke can.


do burning pubes smell worse than normal hair?  I mean they have crabs, semen, urine, other residues I guess...
 
2014-04-23 08:17:10 AM  

CatfoodSpork: What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?


That's exactly what I'm worried about.. Plus, have a cop sit outside a hydroponics store, calling in "anonymous tips" about the customers of that place... It's practically what they're doing already...

Subs, you're foolish to think this was in anyway heroic...
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 08:17:12 AM  

Leader O'Cola: CatfoodSpork: What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?

your ability to perform a 3rd grader level thinking "outside the box" argument
automatically qualifies you for a higher level calling than our current USSC shiatbags.


Now he's on the "First up against the wall" list.  Just like you and me.
 
2014-04-23 08:17:34 AM  
To be followed by the police phoning in their own anonymous tips.
 
2014-04-23 08:17:59 AM  
What's missing from the article is that the caller actually gave her name. Because the prosecution didn't enter the call into evidence initially, the lower courts, and the SCOTUS, treated it as an anonymous tip. But it wasn't anonymous at all.

From Justice Thomas's opinion: At the suppression hearing, counsel for petitioners did not dispute that the reporting party identified herself by name in the 911 call recording. Because neither the caller nor the Humboldt County dispatcher who received the call was present at the hearing, however, the prosecution did not introduce the recording into evidence. The prosecution proceeded to treat the tip as anonymous, and the lower courts followed suit. See 2012 WL 4842651, *6 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012).
 
2014-04-23 08:18:32 AM  
I must have read a different article. The article I read only says police have a right to pull over a vehicle based on a 911 call. The search came after finding the driver drunk and smelling 30 lbs of marijuana.

Not saying I agree 100 percent, and I didn't read the actual decision but that's what the article said.
 
2014-04-23 08:18:44 AM  
R.I.P. Fourth Amendment.

I'd actually be okay with this; so long as the person who knowingly gave a false tip was summarily executed.
 
GBB
2014-04-23 08:19:01 AM  
Considering that anonymous tips of hostage situations within a house have resulted in SWAT callouts, forced entries, and shot dogs, anonymous tips that result in traffic stops doesn't sound like much of an issue.
 
2014-04-23 08:19:01 AM  

runwiz: To be followed by the police phoning in their own anonymous tips.


img.fark.net
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 08:20:06 AM  

acchief: What's missing from the article is that the caller actually gave her name. Because the prosecution didn't enter the call into evidence initially, the lower courts, and the SCOTUS, treated it as an anonymous tip. But it wasn't anonymous at all.

From Justice Thomas's opinion: At the suppression hearing, counsel for petitioners did not dispute that the reporting party identified herself by name in the 911 call recording. Because neither the caller nor the Humboldt County dispatcher who received the call was present at the hearing, however, the prosecution did not introduce the recording into evidence. The prosecution proceeded to treat the tip as anonymous, and the lower courts followed suit. See 2012 WL 4842651, *6 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012).


How is this a distinction with a difference?

Actually.. it could be worse.   Can't you see a police officer or a prosecutor all of a sudden "forgetting" who gave them the tip.

I think maybe we should be giving copies of "A Scanner Darkly" to everyone we know...
 
2014-04-23 08:21:46 AM  

Flakeloaf: Headline is to article as eel is to goldfish.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip.

In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster.
The five-justice court majority disagreed, and in so doing gave police new authority to rely on anonymous tipsters.
The court has long held that officers can make stops based on anonymous tips, but the information in those tips must provide enough detail to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, Thomas, the author of the majority opinion, concluded that because the 911 tipster said she had been forced off the road, she was an eyewitness, and that police could infer that there was reason to believe the truck driver was drunk.
Relying on 911 tipsters is reasonable, he said, because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers," and the calls can be recorded.

This is a far cry from "an anonymous tip lets me search your house". But hey, keep searchin that chicken.


Your post will either be largely ignored, or you will get called a bootlicker.
 
2014-04-23 08:21:50 AM  

CatfoodSpork: What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?


Because he would be arrested when they found out who phoned in the tip? i am guessing you are relying on the Fark headline being a 100% accurate version of the ruling because it fits your prejudices, unfortunately as is most often the cast the headline is not actually more than vaguely acquainted with reality.
 
2014-04-23 08:22:08 AM  

jmr61: Thanks a lot Bush 1 for that POS Clarence Thomas.

Saw him at work on the court a couple years ago. It was disgusting to see him on that bench in that robe. Hopefully he will suffer a massive stroke soon.


We get it.
 
2014-04-23 08:22:14 AM  

Flakeloaf: Headline is to article as eel is to goldfish.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip.

In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster.
The five-justice court majority disagreed, and in so doing gave police new authority to rely on anonymous tipsters.
The court has long held that officers can make stops based on anonymous tips, but the information in those tips must provide enough detail to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, Thomas, the author of the majority opinion, concluded that because the 911 tipster said she had been forced off the road, she was an eyewitness, and that police could infer that there was reason to believe the truck driver was drunk.
Relying on 911 tipsters is reasonable, he said, because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers," and the calls can be recorded.

This is a far cry from "an anonymous tip lets me search your house". But hey, keep searchin that chicken.


"Hi, 911, I just saw Flakeloaf buy a bag of cocaine, shove it deep into his rectum to, 'Keep the pigs guessing,' and drive off in his '88 Cutlass Supreme, license plate 'BUTTM4N'. I don't know what the pig comment was all about, do you think it was a degrading remark about the cops or something? I wouldn't be surprised, he once told me that he jerked off to a cop's funeral on TV. When you pull him over make sure you check really deep, it looked like his hand was brown all the way to the third knuckle."
 
2014-04-23 08:25:07 AM  
Depends a bit on the 911 system in place.  Like the article says, you can't be entirely anonymous when using 911.

I am a bit shocked that the police responded to a bad driving call however.  I called in about a reckless driver in a school zone once.  The operator told me, "Yeah, he's probably across the town line by now.  Nothing we can do."
 
2014-04-23 08:25:43 AM  
We have a program coming up on the Roberts Court.  Maybe I will read the book and participate.
 
2014-04-23 08:26:30 AM  
Bareefer Obonghit:

"Hi, 911, I just saw Flakeloaf buy a bag of cocaine, shove it deep into his rectum to, 'Keep the pigs guessing,' and drive off in his '88 Cutlass Supreme, license plate 'BUTTM4N'. I don't know what the pig comment was all about, do you think it was a degrading remark about the co ...

Joke's on you, it was anthrax. I'll have the guy who looks up 911 logfiles mail some toilets to your house.

My problem with this case is how they had a reason to search a closed container (the car) belonging to someone who was already being detained. Reasonable grounds minus urgency equals search warrant. Would it have been THAT hard to phone the judge? We've thrown out convictions for less.
 
2014-04-23 08:26:35 AM  
It's a narrow ruling that applies only to tips about dangerous *drivers.*  I doubt seriously that this warrantless search exception will be extended to tips by people who tell the cops that their neighbors' lights are on after 11 PM.

Cops are already permitted to search your car after a valid traffic stop.  So this isn't really a major extension of warrantless search powers.
 
2014-04-23 08:26:47 AM  

Flakeloaf: Headline is to article as eel is to goldfish.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip.

In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster.
The five-justice court majority disagreed, and in so doing gave police new authority to rely on anonymous tipsters.
The court has long held that officers can make stops based on anonymous tips, but the information in those tips must provide enough detail to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, Thomas, the author of the majority opinion, concluded that because the 911 tipster said she had been forced off the road, she was an eyewitness, and that police could infer that there was reason to believe the truck driver was drunk.
Relying on 911 tipsters is reasonable, he said, because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers," and the calls can be recorded.

This is a far cry from "an anonymous tip lets me search your house". But hey, keep searchin that chicken.


In the case at hand, the cops followed the reported car for 5 minutes with zero signs that he was impaired. They still pulled him over, on the anonymous callers say-so alone. That pretty much means that yes, an anonymous tip lets me search your (insert property here).
 
2014-04-23 08:27:13 AM  

CatfoodSpork: What's to stop a cop from making an anonymous tip about a search that he himself will conduct?


THere's a level of professionalism we are to assume here. Not all cops are sh*tbags. I would wager that the majority of police are, in fact, more good people than bad.

This is one of those "if you're not doing anything wrong, then why does it bother you" things in my book. Much like CCTV cameras on city streets.
 
2014-04-23 08:27:57 AM  
I say we immediately begin calling police about Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito.   I've heard they're up to something nefarious.
 
2014-04-23 08:28:34 AM  

Flakeloaf: Headline is to article as eel is to goldfish.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip.

In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster.
The five-justice court majority disagreed, and in so doing gave police new authority to rely on anonymous tipsters.
The court has long held that officers can make stops based on anonymous tips, but the information in those tips must provide enough detail to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, Thomas, the author of the majority opinion, concluded that because the 911 tipster said she had been forced off the road, she was an eyewitness, and that police could infer that there was reason to believe the truck driver was drunk.
Relying on 911 tipsters is reasonable, he said, because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers," and the calls can be recorded.

This is a far cry from "an anonymous tip lets me search your house". But hey, keep searchin that chicken.


Easily 99% of American's don't understand what a Supreme Court ruling is, what its reasoning is, and what the impact is.

To their credit I think that journalist have gotten a little better in the last several years.  They also used to be horrendous at summarizing a case.  My suspicion is that this is because they are all out of work lawyers who graduated in the last 5 years.
 
2014-04-23 08:28:44 AM  
I have to agree with scallia on this one.  Our police are already getting out of control.   I can't see how giving them new powers could possibly make the current situation any better.

/cops are a bigger threat than criminals
 
2014-04-23 08:29:42 AM  

acchief: What's missing from the article is that the caller actually gave her name. Because the prosecution didn't enter the call into evidence initially, the lower courts, and the SCOTUS, treated it as an anonymous tip. But it wasn't anonymous at all.

From Justice Thomas's opinion: At the suppression hearing, counsel for petitioners did not dispute that the reporting party identified herself by name in the 911 call recording. Because neither the caller nor the Humboldt County dispatcher who received the call was present at the hearing, however, the prosecution did not introduce the recording into evidence. The prosecution proceeded to treat the tip as anonymous, and the lower courts followed suit. See 2012 WL 4842651, *6 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012).



But if they're treating it as an anonymous tip, then it won't be very compelling to try to distinguish a future case on the basis that the tip is actually anonymous, will it?


/DNRTFO yet
 
2014-04-23 08:29:53 AM  

Flakeloaf: Headline is to article as eel is to goldfish.

[snip]
This is a far cry from "an anonymous tip lets me search your house". But hey, keep searchin that chicken.


acchief: What's missing from the article is that the caller actually gave her name.


big pig peaches: I must have read a different article. The article I read only says police have a right to pull over a vehicle based on a 911 call. The search came after finding the driver drunk and smelling 30 lbs of marijuana.



All of these things here.  And thank you to the three posters as I have a brace on my dominant typing hand right now for putting all that out there for me.

(typing is hard now.  *sigh*)
 
2014-04-23 08:31:12 AM  
I almost called Police on a suspicious vehicle parked in a vacant lot across from my house last night. You mean the cops could have gotten a search out of the deal?

/couldn't find a non 911 police number.
//you would think they would make it easier to call the cops
 
2014-04-23 08:31:28 AM  

Flakeloaf: Headline is to article as eel is to goldfish.

This is a far cry from "an anonymous tip lets me search your house". But hey, keep searchin that chicken.


You beat me to it, and you get it.  Thank you.
 
2014-04-23 08:31:37 AM  
So will the police have to provide evidence that such a tip was left?  When I read the headline, I kinda got the vibe that the police could just root through my car based on a really loose (and very easily fabricated) claim that some one told me that there was meth in this car.
 
2014-04-23 08:31:42 AM  

plcow: Easily 99% of American's don't understand what a Supreme Court ruling is, what its reasoning is, and what the impact is.


They rule on point of law not on the facts of the case.  I guess, I am going to have to read the opinion to see why they ruled they way they did (when I get to work).
 
2014-04-23 08:32:06 AM  

EyeballKid: naughtyrev: Scalia apparently understands that a lot of people would be giving the police anonymous tips about him.

Funny you mention that, but there was a whispered rumor around the DC area that a known conservative Supreme Court justice has a massive stash of child porn hidden in his house. If none of them have anything to hide, there shouldn't be a problem with a thorough search.


I like the way you think.
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report