Say Anything Blog

dd: As a CA resident for a very long time, I can testify that it isn’t as bad as you make it sound.  I want the drunk drivers in jail, dude.

A tip is a tip, and an informant is an informant, both are valuable tools for law enforcement.

But an anonymous tip or anonymous informant is pure hearsay, and unadmissable in any court that I’m aware of.

This had better be overturned, because if it’s not, I’m going to make a few important phone calls to the police—from a pay phone!

[Feet make good soup!]

BTW, I think MA still holds the title of “most socialist state in the Union”.

dd: As a CA resident for a very long time, I can testify that it isn’t as bad as you make it sound. I want the drunk drivers in jail, dude.

Yes, we all want those that endanger everybody to be removed fromt he road, but I hope you are not saying that that is justification for the police, or CHP in this case, to pull over random people looking for DUI?  I don’t think that’s what you were saying, just making sure…

the police can also go into your house without a warrant to arrest you if they suspect that you were DUI.

??? Since when?

I was recently stopped twice in a ten-minute period in an “area of concentration” by the Indiana State police. I was stopped by the first officer that claimed I was speeding.

When the officer asked me “Have you been drinking tonight sir?” I honestly replied that I had consumed three beers over a two-hour span between 9:00pm and 11:00pm, which at that time was nearly four hours ago.

After breath-a-lizing me he let me go with a verbal warning for allegedly speeding.

Ten miles later, the second officer claimed I was driving “suspiciously slowly”. When I commented that I had already passed a breath-a-lizer test and that I was driving slowly because my speedometer showed 63mph when the previous cop had claimed I was doing 70mph he said “Oh, so you admit you were already stopped for impaired driving.” and cuffed me and took me to the Fulton County Jail.

I was administered several sobriety tests and then breath-a-lized again. I passed them all. The cop commented that he could have flunked me on the walk the line test because I failed to follow instruction by turning “too quickly” when he had asked me to turn slowly and walk back.

My only “crime” was that I was driving at three in the morning in an area that the police had decided to target. Reasonable suspicion is a joke when it comes to traffic stops.

I have no doubt that the same California State Supreme Court would rule 5-2 in the opoosite direction were this a question of an anonymous tip regarding some nefarious activity (drug crimes of one sort or another, counterfeiting, etc.) taking place in a person’s home, rather than out on the public highway.  In the home, there is an “expectation of privacy” while there is no such court-sanctioned expectation in public.

Furthermore, there is every reason for authorities to be concerned that a drunk drive might well kill or injure others if allowed to continue on his way.  What takes place on the public streets and highways is is much more tightly regulated than what occurs in a private setting.  There is no privacy issue here.  Only an issue of public safety.

dd: It was the “socialist” part to which I objected.  I thought most cops were regarded as fascists.  I agree that cops on the West Coast are more intense than those in say, NYC.  Overall, though, CA is not socialist, at least not to the degree MA is.  Don’t confuse Berkeley and SF with the rest of CA.  Maybe that is what you think.  The rest of CA thinks those people are weirdos.

Sphag:  I think it’s a delicate matter with the anonymous tip thing.  It might be abused by some, but probably most of the tips pan out, and that’s a good thing.  We are talking about anonymous tips, right?

My only “crime” was that I was driving at three in the morning in an area that the police had decided to target. Reasonable suspicion is a joke when it comes to traffic stops.

If you were booked an brought downtown, there is much more to your story… You admit you were driving and impaired to a certain degree, obviously it was enough to be pulled over twice by different officers and arrested by one.  Next time don’t drink and drive!

Sphag: I think it’s a delicate matter with the anonymous tip thing. It might be abused by some, but probably most of the tips pan out, and that’s a good thing. We are talking about anonymous tips, right?

Yes, anonymous.  If the tipster is willing to testify in court as to the suspicious nature of another’s driving, there is no problem.  But allowing anonymous tipsters to call in and have it lead to the stoppage and inspection of a vehicle amounts to the same thing as going off an officer’s “hunch” that someone is impaired. There HAS to be some sort of demonstratable suspicion before you are detained by law enforcement…

DD, the first link you gave gives a better description of what happened.

Two officers went to the door and were denied entry, first by Thompson’s housemate and then by Thompson, whom the officers could see through the open door, staggering and apparently drunk, the court said. The officers then walked in, handcuffed Thompson and conducted a blood test, which showed his blood alcohol at 0.21 percent.

First, they witnessed first-hand the drunkeness of the person who they knew to be driving a few minutes earlier.

Second, they did not go intot he house based on an anonymous tip, they went in because of what they witnessed themselves (and I do not beleive the concerned citizen was in fact anonymous, it seems to indicate the tipster testified in court)

Sphag:  I don’t think it is the same thing.  You seem to assume that the anonymous tip is wrong, but it might be that most of them are correct.  If I see a driver weaving and call it in, the officer can stop that driver, even if he doesn’t observe the weaving for he time he observed the driver.  If the driver is impaired(which explains the weaving) why isn’t that a public service?  In the cases where the tip might be wrong, I’m sure the driver is sent along his or her way when that is determined.

In the cases where the tip might be wrong, I’m sure the driver is sent along his or her way when that is determined.

So if I am walking next to you down the street and call the local policeman over because I suspect you have a weapon on you, you have no problem consenting to a strip search “just to make sure”?

It’s about the principles of the Constitution here, Robert.  I’m surprised at your stance. The Constitution strickly forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.  I think this clearly qualifies as being unreasonable since the only reason to search, or in this case give a field sobriety test, the suspect is an anonymous tip from a random stranger… That is clearly unconstitutional

An anonymous tip is the same as giving the cops the ability to search anytime.

Coversation between cops:

I’m going to stop this guy.

Any probable cause?

I feel like I just had an anonymous tip.  Who can say differently?

Sphag: I notice that you morphed my example from observing someone weaving down the highway to someone walking next to me on the street.  Nice move.  Actually the legal aspect of this revolves around the meaning of “probable cause”.  Is an anonymous tip(maybe more than one about the same motorist) on a weekend night(especially after midnight) probable cause or not?  You also assume that the police aren’t exercising any discretion here at all; in your thinking, they just go off with sirens blazing and red lights flashing after everyone they get an anonymous tip on.  In the only example we have, the person was intoxicated, and it’s good that they got them off the road.  The officer couldn’t tell, but the anonymous tip turned out to be correct.  Isn’t this the same thinking that criticized both the terrorist surveillance programs?  That we were on the road to losing all our Constitutional Rights, by surveilling the terrorist phone calls and bank transactions?

TW: Every call that goes through the police switchboard is recorded.  This is a straw man argument.  Maybe it could be regarded as illegal wiretapping, eh?

Some tips go thru the switchboard and some don’t.

In the case of DUI this may be a bad example, but cops can also make anonymous tip.

Of course it’s not that the cops ever make up their probable cause “swerving” thing so they probaby don’t have to resort to spending a quarter.

Still, anonymous tips is a bad thing to get started.

TW: I have never called law enforcement when it wasn’t through a switchboard and recorded, but maybe it could happen once in a blue moon, but what’s the real issue here?  If I see a drunk swerving down the road, changing lanes and generally driving recklessly, isn’t it my civic duty to call it in?  Should I have to disrupt my life as a result?  I think it would be good for drunks and druggies to know that they may be turned in by citizens who don’t want them endangering the rest of us.  As usual, I’m open to a cost/benefit argument on this one.  As far as I can see, the benefits far outweigh the costs, but I’m open to being convinced by a logical argument to the contrary.  Just haven’t heard one yet.

Spaghnum says to Smoky, You admit you were driving and impaired to a certain degree...

Actually he didn’t.

If I see a drunk swerving down the road, changing lanes and generally driving recklessly, isn’t it my civic duty to call it in?

Yes

Should I have to disrupt my life as a result?

Apparently you don’t feel that strongly about your civic duty. 

I think it would be good for drunks and druggies to know that they may be turned in by citizens who don’t want them endangering the rest of us.

Agreed, I called in on someone once, gave my name and address because I figured that otherwise they wouldn’t do anything about it.  (Nothing ever came of it btw.)

"Apparently you don’t feel that strongly about your civic duty.”

Actually, that’s false.  Why should a lowlife who has no respect for the rest of us compel me to disrupt my life?  Should the tail wag the dog?  I already have a police force I pay for with my taxes(my civic duty, I think), and if I use them to enforce the laws, so much the better.  I am still waiting for a cost/benefit argument for letting the drunks and druggies run free on the road.

Isn’t this the same thinking that criticized both the terrorist surveillance programs? That we were on the road to losing all our Constitutional Rights, by surveilling the terrorist phone calls and bank transactions?

Has nothing to do with that.  That’s a matter of national security and has nothing to do with civil law.

Spaghnum says to Smoky, You admit you were driving and impaired to a certain degree...

Actually he didn’t.

Yes he did.  He said he had been drinking shortly before driving. He said he “passed” the BAC test, meaning it was under the legal limit, but you don’t have to be over the BAC limit to be conviced of driving under the influence.  You can still be convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol if you driving is sufficiently impaired by that alcohol in your blood.

I am still waiting for a cost/benefit argument for letting the drunks and druggies run free on the road.

You’re missing the point.  What happened in this case was unconstitutional.  Even if you feel having such procedures for your local PD has merit, it’s still unconstitutional.  That is the debate, not wether it works well or not…

Yes he did. He said he had been drinking shortly before driving.

He said that he had three beers four hours before. There ain’t no booze in the blood at that point.

Unless he’s a midget.

Sphag: It is your opinion that it is unconstitutional.  If random vehicle checks for drunk drivers are constitutional, then stops on the basis of anonymous tips would be constitutional.  Generally speaking, simply driving down a particular street at a particular time does not constitute probable cause, but the greater good to the public has gotten them approved.  I don’t think your dog will hunt here.

OK, I see the unreasonable search and seizure arguments, but I have got to tell you that I’ve called in at least 6 drunk drivers that I can recall off the top of my head.  Every time I was asked for my name and address, so that I could be called as a witness as necessary.  I was even asked to follow the car on a couple of occassions, as long as I felt that I could safely do so.  In every one of those instances, the officer passed me, got behind the driver in question, waited for an action that invited their action, then stopped the vehicle.  If these had occurred in busy traffic, rather than late nights and open roads, I’d be happy if the person got pulled over, rather than kill someone.  If they aren’t intoxicated, what do they have to worry about?  They can only search the car if they have a reasonable suspicion, or the breathalyzer shows a level, right?  If they pull you over, and you are already following the laws, what’s to hide?  It’s like the financial records program.  If you aren’t giving funds to terrorists, you have nothing to hide.  Seems fairly reasonable to me with the # of people drunk drivers kill every year.  I guess I’m not as worried about it, cause I live in a state that seems to have a little more common sense going on than others.  If I was forced to move to california, I’d seriously have to think about suicide as an alternative.

If I was forced to move to california, I’d seriously have to think about suicide as an alternative.

Ouch..... come on, it’s not THAT bad out here!

Sphag: As a Californian, I encourage him to stay away.

He said that he had three beers four hours before. There ain’t no booze in the blood at that point.

Unless he’s a midget.

Memory served he said three drinks within the last two hours, my bad.  Still, the fact that he was pulled over by two different officers and then booked makes a strong arguement that this guy is full of crap when he tells how much he was drinking.  I’ve been pulled over several times for DUI suspicion, each time the suspicion was justified even though I had had nothing to drink, and each time I was let go in short order when it became apparent I had had nothing to drink.

I have a hard time believing two different officers were suspicous of him and he got arrested if he had no alcohol in his system.