Letting him go is baloney!!! That one free swerve could cost the lives of YOUR family. This ticks me off big time. If policeman has a tip that the driver is driving drunk that is probable cause. You'd think rational people would rather be stopped than kill somebody. I don't think being stopped by a policeman is violating anybody's rights. If you've done something wrong and you get caught because a policeman randomly stops you… well tough tulips. Face the music.

As if the cops won't lie and say they saw a swerve.

Anonymous tips have come under scrutiny in recent years. If an anonymous tip is received that the guy in the red shirt standing on the corner is dealing drugs and an officer stops the guy, pats him down, and finds drugs, it's no good anymore under the new standards.

I suspect that's the reasoning behind this decision. Reasonable suspicion – which the call establishes – isn't enough and Terry v. Ohio (pat down case) wouldn't apply. The officer would actually have to observe a violation before initiating what would amount to a criminal investigation.

The reason for that is this: Field testing for a DWI is initiated based on probable cause. You can't start pulling people over because tou think they may have been drinking. That's why cops can't just wait down the street from a bar and stop people they see leaving. Is it reasonable to assume they've been drinking? Sure. Is assuming enough. No. One reason anonymous tips are shaky is that sometimes they come from angry spouses or significant others. Their wanting you in jail doesn't constitute probable cause.

That being said, I'd hate to be the guy behind someone we'd had a call on, not stop him,, and then he swerves head on into someone minding their own business. It would be a nightmare, both professionally and personally.

Rob,

Really, it's not necessary to lie if you want to pull someone over bad enough. If they go one mile an hour over the speed limit or have a license plate light out or stop too far (even a foot) into an intersection or start to change lanes before you turn on your turn signal – well, the list goes on and on. All of that establishes probable cause. Any cop could make a hundred traffic stops a day without ever having to lie about any of them, and any who choose to lie are stupid.

It wasn't "random", and the cop had what he regarded as probable cause. I think it's much wiser to trust the perception of a trained and experienced traffic officer than to endanger the population by being permissive about drunk driving.
I don't think stopping everyone driving down the street is constitutional, though.
Bottom line for me: the cop was right, and some lives may have been saved.

Sorry Mick. I think you're wrong. The officer had a TIP that the driver was drunk. And he was. If he wasn't all he has to do is say "Hello, officer, how can I help you." Problem over and done with.

Do we protect the criminal, or do we protect the law abiding citizens?
Lenin believed that crime was a product of a disordered society, and therefore, criminals are not to blame for their crimes. This is why lefties are eager to kill unborn children, but stage midnight vigils to try to stop the execution of a vicious killer.
They consider the killer a victim, but not the unborn child; in that case, the mother is the victim, in their thinking.

He had a tip. But that's not good enough. If the officer doesn't observe any wrong doing then there's no probable cause.

Its a constitutional issue lioncourt. Search and seizure. So of course the supreme court has skin in the game.

And felonies can be based on tips? What does that even mean?

Honestly. Smarten up.

As do I.

I agree.

If this wasn't an anonymous tip I wouldn't have a problem. Because there's also a 6th amendment issue here: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

This is the right decision. I think drunk driving checkpoints are unamerican. Nothing says we're going to search you because you're driving. Most of the time the police over extend their power during traffic stops.

They are.

Greetings:

Is it just me or is there an analogy to our government's approach to illegal immigration here?

It seems to me that the only "socially acceptable" enforcement of the immigration laws is against the hopefully limited number who commit other crime, kind of a one free illegal entry.

Carol: "If you've done something wrong and you get caught because a policeman randomly stops you… well tough tulips. Face the music."

Now, what about the people who don't want to live in a police state?

In another scenario, let’s say that an anonymous tip names a suspect in a robbery. Police arrive at the suspect’s home and upon seeing his face, identify him as the man in surveillance photos. What then? Could it also be argued that the police had no right to knock on this man’s door to follow up on an anonymous tip? They had no prior knowledge that this man could be their suspect if it wasn’t for an anonymous tip.

You can investigate an anonymous tip at any time You just cannot stop a person unless the anonymous tip has some indicia of reliability, usually shown by the tip containing some prediction of future conduct that would lead a reasonable person to believe the person may be committing a crime.

The liberal side of the court votes for individuals rights? Scalia votes against individual right. NOW thats a BIG WTF