Roberts speaks out on drunken driving case

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Roberts speaks out on drunken driving case
He wanted to review the ruling but failed to persuade his court colleagues

updated 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out in vain Tuesday against a lower court ruling he says will grant drunken drivers "one free swerve" that could potentially end someone's life.

Roberts wanted the Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling but he failed to persuade enough of his colleagues. The court declined to hear an appeal from Virginia officials who had their drunken driving conviction of Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr. thrown out by that state's Supreme Court. Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

The majority of the justices did not say why they did not take the case, but Roberts in a written dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Virginia court's decision will put people in danger.

The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road — by which time it may be too late," Roberts wrote.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33399367/ns/politics-white_... /

[WriteDown]

1. I can see no bad consequences from giving drunk drivers...

leniency.

[dmallind]

3. I see no bad consequences from having to be doing something wrong before being stopped.

If you can't imagine why civilian reporting of "intoxicated" drivers leading to stops, searches and tests of drivers performing perfectly legally could be a bad idea and abused you have a very limited imagination. We're already almost a police state over this overblown minuscule risk without making it open to any and all to determine who is "guilty".

[WriteDown]

7. If you give a description of someone robbing a bank....

Do the police have to actually see the robbery before stopping someone matching that description near the bank?

[sandnsea]

23. Only if an actual bank reported an actual robbery

Get the difference now?

No, the cops should not go chasing down people because an anonymous person says a guy in jeans robbed a bank.

[WriteDown]

25. What if you call and say your neighbor is beating his wife..

I guess the wife has to call first?

[sandnsea]

27. No, but they can't stop random men on the street

Because you said a guy in jeans was beating his wife. And they can't show up at the door and arrest someone with absolutely no further evidence of wrong-doing. They have to see evidence of abuse themselves, or have one of the individuals say some kind of physical altercation took place.

[WriteDown]

31. If you saw someone beating his wife while driving his car...

Or someone run over by a car, they would stop the car regardless.

[sandnsea]

33. Not necessarily

If the car is humming along with no problem, or the couple is smooching, they wouldn't have probable cause to stop the car. They investigated, found nothing wrong. End of story.

In the case of someone being run over, again, there would be a victim.

Really, the police have trampled on our liberties quite enough in the last ten years. Let's not give them anymore room to harrass people.

[WriteDown]

34. A victim?

But who's to say its that car. If a witness says that you ran over a bum, but the officer doesn't see you do it and doesn't witness you breaking any laws, what right do they have to stop you?

[sandnsea]

36. Good lord. There's a victim so there is definitely a crime

An anonymous drunk driving call, there's NOTHING. Cops cannot go pulling people out of their homes for no reason, or their cars.

Think Professor Gates. They had an obligation to show up and investigate, the hoopla arose when they went beyond the initial knock on the door. Until Gates went outside, no crime had been committed.

[WriteDown]

40. So the cops would need to examine the body first before

stopping the car or do you think that they would send someone to stop the car at the same time as go examine the body?

[sandnsea]

44. This is too stupid.

I bet you like those cameras at traffic lights too.

[WriteDown]

45. Actually, those have proven TOO effective. nt

[No Elephants]

60. But callers are 100% accurate and never malicious.

[WriteDown]

64. Neither are rape accusers, but we seem to arrest suspects. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

46. No.

The cops would need Joe P. Somebody to make the allegation that the suspect was swerving and exhibiting the symptoms of a drunk driver.

Not an anonymous tip, which could come in any form such as a napkin with a license plate written on it, to a throwaway cell phone, and the caller refusing to leave a name, etc.

This isn't even about whether or not a crime has been committed, it's about what level of accusation qualifies as probable cause.

[sandnsea]

47. In the case of the phantom bank robberies and other victims

That this writer has repeatedly referred to - the fact that there is a verifiable victim makes a difference too. That would be the probable cause to investigate.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. That as well.

If you have a victim that is pressing the point, you have ample probable cause to investigate. Particularly in cases of physical harm, like a drunk driver bumping or hitting another car.

[mule_train]

62. A cop can follow anyone for a few miles, and find at least one minor traffic violation drunk or not

what is wrong with police maintaining accountability for probable cause?

sometimes when I hear civil rights and free trade attitudes of some people on this site, i think they're way to the right of Reagan

over and over again, people support 'the DUI exception' to the constitution at every turn, giving no thought to the precident that's being set

law is about precident, period. might not make a lot of sense to many people, but it's reality

i cant believe that people are criticizing a bush appointee who supported police accountability

if you back your car out of your driveway, and put it on the street just to let someone out of the garage, it's a DUI if you're over .08, based on the principal of no exceptions

we need to keep it the same for probable cause - no exceptions

[Rebubula]

11. Sorry...

...your logic is flawed. Once a person is drunk behind a wheel, they are doing something wrong.

How they came to the cop's attention is not my concern. My concern is that 10s of thousands die every year due to impaired drivers.

[Flaneur]

16. So you won't mind my calling 911 to report Rebula driving drunk?

Because I'm an embittered ex-girfriend (or boyfriend)? You won't mind being stopped for no reason because of some anonymous denunciation?

Me, I mind. The cops better have a reason to be hassling me. If I violate a traffic law or show some indication of impairment, okay, but not because some anonymous tipster said so.

Oh, man, that "anonymous tipster" bit could come in really handy for cops.

[cabluedem]

65. The police have been using cellphones to make anonymous tips for a PC traffic stop

Be afraid. Be very afraid. There is some case law on this subject.

[Piewhacket]

48. The issue is whether

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

means anything.

If you can be stopped and searched without probable cause, then the fourth amendment
no longer applies. If it no longer applies the police are no longer constrained in their
actions. No privacy = No freedom = No Peace.

The "potential harm" argument of Roberts is very dangerously misguided if it is intended
to allow traffic stops without cause, or with trivial or fabricated cause. It appears
Roberts, like Rhenquist, has only contempt for the bill of rights.

Roberts view is extreme. The view has even less merit than the Bush doctrine of preemptive war.
Note that he got no support from the other justices, not even the bozo twins Scalia/Thomas.
That's how extreme his view. He needs to rethink it.

[paulsby]

69. that's not the issue

the issue is... is the citizen report "reasonable suspicion" under terry v. ohio

ime, it is. i have had dozens of times when citizens have reported a drunk driver to me. in all but 2 of the cases where i caught the guy (that i can recall), the guy/gal WAS impaired by liquor

the two where they weren't. one was very tired. the other was just a clueless driver.

but at LEAST 2 dozen times, the citizen report was correct.

that's more than a reasonable suspicion.

it was a decision based on this particular concept (see: terry v. ohio) and imo the court ruled wrongly.

fwiw, i always DO try to follow the car after the report is made, to gather extra evidence, but i don't think it's necessary under terry v. ohio.

[harmonicon]

37. can you see any bad consequences....

of the police harassing the innocent at the will of any disgruntled "tipster"?

[Zorra]

54. Yeah, let's just eliminate the 4th Amendment altogether and make it

completely legal for cops to search anyone at anytime at their discretion.

Geez.

[No Elephants]

59. Spin much? Describing them as drunk assumes the critical fact.

If your post had been honest, it would have read,

"I can see no potential bad consequences from arresting people who appear to be driving safely simply because a caller SAID they were drunk."

Not as though anyone might abuse that.




Way to go on supporting your guys on the SCOTUS, though. Again, kudos for 100% consistency.

[truthisfreedom]

2. Allowing anyone who has a grudge to be able to get someone pulled over is not good law.

If a person is drunk enough to be observed by one party as a danger on the road, they're extremely likely to be observed a second time if a cop is following them closely. If the cop sees absolutely no sign that they're drunk, what do you think the likelihood is that they are?

[Ozymanithrax]

4. If you wait for a drunk driver to kill a pedestrian, called probable cause...

you have huge ramifications.

But that is the price we pay for living in a free society. That driver has the right to go on his way until he breaks the law. The word of an anonymous tipster should not be enough to send him to jail. How could he possibly face his accuser if arrested if the accuser is unknown?

[Rebubula]

12. LOLZ....

...Again...once the driver is behind the wheel of the car and impaired he IS BREAKING THE LAW!

If the person is NOT drunk, he will not go to jail - regardless of any anonymous tip.


Drunk drivers kills 10s of thousands of people a year. It is amazing to me how people will defend drunk drivers.

[SFnomad]

26. Re: LOLZ ....

And if the person is NOT drunk, they have been illegally detained. The 4th Amendment may not mean much to you, but it does to some of us.

[Tempest]

56. Welcome to DU

And you are absolutely correct.

It's hard to believe some on DU approve of undermining the 4th Amendment.

[Ozymanithrax]

49. You can not tell if the person behind the wheel is drunk.

Even if he is breaking the law, if the driver doesn't do anything to indicate the state of intoxication, then no police officer should not be able to search his person or seize him and his property.

That is enshrined within in the bill of rights.

Once arrested the driver has the right to face his accuser. He can not face an anonymous tipster.

Freedom is dangerous.

[Purveyor]

5. Any cop will tell you that all they have to do is follow you for 1/2 a mile and

they can find some 'legit' reason to pull you over.

[KansDem]

10. During the summer of 2003, my family and I were vacationing in California...

We were driving from Reno south to Bridgeport. Very mountainous. Anyway, it was after dark and I was on a two-lane road and driving very carefully. I felt if I got too close to the edge, I would slip off down a ravine, so I was driving more in the middle of the road as there was no traffic. Well, after a while I saw lights turn on behind me and a California Highway Patrol car appeared in my rear-view mirror. I pulled over and the officer got out. He wanted to know why I was "swerving" so much (I think he thought I was drunk). I explained that we were from Kansas (you know, real flat!) and on vacation in northern California. I told him I was a little nervous about getting too close to the edge of the road, since I couldn't see beyond the shoulder of the road. After checking my license and rental agreement, he let us go.

I didn't tell him I grew up in southern California as I thought he would think then I should know about northern California roads and not be so nervous. That in and of itself might open a whole new can of worms lead him to think I was drunk...

[madmom]

17. I was driving home from work one night around midnight. A car came up behind me with it's

bright lights on wouldn't pass or get off my ass. I decided to make it pass by slowing down, got pulled over, it was a cop. He said he didn't have his brights on (yeah right) I didn't get a ticket probably because I am a middle aged woman but if I wasn't.....?

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Perhaps they were aimed wrong.

Motorpool vehicles can be like that. He's responsible, but hey, how does one prove it?

[KansDem]

6. I don't understand...

Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

If, however, the officer received an "anonymous tip," why can't he investigate and pull the driver over? I mean, if a neighbor called in an "anonymous tip" about something I might be doing illegally, doesn't that officer come to my door and investigate?

[imdjh]

19. I got pulled over after being reported.

The police officer was very nice, and told me that someone had reported that I appeared to be driving while drunk. In fact, I was falling asleep at the wheel, but I didn't think that the officer needed to know that so I just played dumb.

[excess_3]

58. do you really believe that?

if so, you are very naive.

cops lie for a living

[imdjh]

67. Yes, I do, because I was drifting in the lane and I had been falling asleep.

If no one had called me in, then the officer could have pulled me over on observation. Your accusation makes no sense in this regard.

[imdjh]

20. An anonymous tip isn't probable cause. A credible tip is.

[KansDem]

22. Ahhh! Thanks for the clarification...

A credible tip would be one in which the tipper IDed him/herself...

[Trillo]

30. If he was driving okay, was he intoxicated?

Around these parts of Southern California, the "code enforcement" cops pull over a driverless vehicle sitting in a private driveway.


In your neighbor example, the officers come to the door and request a warrantless search. This process appears to bypass the Judicial Branch entirely. If you disagree and tell them to get a warrant, they perform a "shake down" warning, any violation they can imagine or fantasize about that looks horrible on paper, the warning itself is preliminary to a citation and unappealable unless you are wealthy enough to initiate a counter lawsuit by hiring a lawyer.

Once it ascends to citation, if it does, the process is apparently appealable by some process, but whether that process is an actual Judicial Branch hearing, or not, is unknown.

Some of us LOVE our quirky decorative schemes, but when a 'house goes up for sale' on the street, code enforcement always seems to come knocking at the door for harassment, wanting a demonstration of the same thing they asked for 3 years earlier, please, demonstrate that your licensed, insured, running vehicles actually run, the same vehicles we asked you about last decade, and 4 years ago.

"You're guilty until proven innocent," and you have to keep proving it over and over, again and again.

Maybe local code enforcement is in cahoots with local car dealerships.

"Pursuit of Happiness"?

[Judi Lynn]

8. Washington Post: Roberts: Decision could give drunk drivers 'one free swerve'

Roberts: Decision could give drunk drivers 'one free swerve'

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 2009; 2:44 PM

A Virginia Supreme Court decision that overturned a drunk driving conviction could result in the commonwealth's intoxicated drivers being given "one free swerve" before being pulled over, with potentially disastrous consequences, U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote Tuesday.

The full Supreme Court said it would not review the 4-3 decision by Virginia's high court that an anonymous tip about an allegedly drunk driver was not sufficient to give law enforcement a reason to stop the person. As is customary, the justices did not give a reason for denying the commonwealth's request to review the decision.

But Roberts, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said his colleagues were making a mistake.

"It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check," Roberts wrote in his dissent. He needed the support of three colleagues to review the Virginia decision.

In the case at hand, a Richmond police officer pulled over Joseph A. Moses Harris Jr. after receiving an anonymous tip that Harris was driving while intoxicated. The tip described Harris, his car and the direction in which he was driving, and police soon found him.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[Nye Bevan]

9. I agree with Roberts, this seems like a dumb ruling

So if I call the police and tell them about a drunk driver, they cannot stop him until they see for themselves that he is breaking traffic laws.

What if I call the police and tell them I heard gunshots and screams coming from a house? Would they not be allowed to enter until they heard gunshots themselves?

Fortunately this ruling should be easily circumvented by a little creativity when the police write up their testimony. And I can't say I would blame them in this case.

[Flaneur]

15. Ah, yes, that's it: Let's encourage police to perjure themselves.

As if they needed the encouragement.

If police are tailing a driver and he's not breaking any traffic laws, what grounds do they have to pull him over? An anonymous tip? You mean like the one I just called in to report Nye Bevan driving drunk because I was irritated with him?

[Nye Bevan]

53. In 50+ yearsnobody has ever anonymously called the cops on me

so I highly doubt that this will ever happen. And I've never heard of this happening to any of my friends or family.

Is this really a big problem? Do a lot of DUers frequently get anonymously (and falsely) reported to the police?

[Tempest]

57. It's happened to a couple of friends of mine

One had an ex-girlfriend who anonymously called the cops that he was dealing drugs. His place was raided during a party and nothing was found. It was only then the police traced the "anonymous" call to his ex's cell phone. She was arrested and he sued her and won.

Another had a neighbor call anonymously claiming he had pulled a gun on his wife. The neighbor had a dispute with him over a fence. Again it was only after they found no gun and the wife said it never happened that the call was traced to the neighbor.

[frylock]

21. easily circumvented by a little creativity when the police write up their testimony..

i can't believe the shit i read on this site sometimes. lets hope that someday you don't piss somebody off because you're driving too slow in the fast lane.

[Nye Bevan]

24. If one of my neighbors called the police

to say they heard shots coming from my house, I would not throw a hissy fit if the police came by my house to follow up. Even if the neighbors were mistaken.

Just as if someone called the police to say I was driving drunk, I would not complain if they pulled me over to check up on it. I never drive drunk, so it would be a 5 minute inconvenience and I would be on my way. I am willing to pay that price if it means that the police have more leeway to stop real drunk drivers.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. You're missing the point.

'Anonymous tips'. If your neighbors call the cops saying shots came from your house, they can follow up if the allegation is untrue. If it comes from a throw-away cell phone, yeah, no, the police are going to have to find some probable cause to get a warrant and enter your home. That means, observing (even hearing) gunfire, or finding a witness that will corrorborate the anonymous tip.

[harmonicon]

41. oh, good - we'll go to you for everything now

Don't mind have your civil liberties violated? No problem. Now, I've heard that drugs are smuggled into the US every day. You won't mind if the cops or DEA give you a body cavity search every day, or whenever they see fit, despite having zero evidence, will you? No, I didn't think so.

Also, I've heard that you have a gun in your jacket pocket and are about to try to kill someone. You won't mind if the police taser you while walking to the grocery store, will you? NO!! It's just a little "inconvenience".

[NYC Liberal]

42. But in this case it was an anonymous tip.

There would be no way of holding the tipper accountable if they were lying.

In the case of someone calling 911 to report gunshots at the house next door, the police would enter the house but they would also know who made the call. Thus it's less likely that the neighbor would lie knowing that they could be charged with false reporting.

The anonymity takes away the fear of repercussion for calling in a false report.

[frylock]

55. apples

oranges

[AtheistCrusader]

35. No, I was mad at first, but look closely.

"Anonymous tip"

Look, I risked my physical well-being to stop a drunk driver once. She was rubbing guard rails, bumped a motorcyclist, and two other cars, almost hit a pedestrian, etc. My wife and I followed her for a half hour with State Patrol on the line, only to have her go into a city, and have to start all over with local police, nary a cop in sight. So when she got blocked in at a red light by a car in front of her, I jumped out, and stood in front of her car until the police arrived.

My testimony was perfectly admissable, because I was not anonymous. The police had every possible probable cause to check her, because I was there to provide testimony. (Vodka, valium, and car keys don't mix, ladies and gentlemen)

A random, anonymous phone call, by itself isn't justification, unless the police observe actual criminal conduct. If you're worried about it, leave your name and number when you call 911 to report someone swerving all over the road.

After all, in America, you have the right to confront your accuser at trial.

[happyslug]

71. If you did NOT ID yourself when you call the Police, they have NO right to Search

Shooting a Gun and screaming are, at best, misdemeanors and as such the Police MUST see the acts themselves before they can enter someone's property. Now, if someone reported a FELONY, that is different, then the Police can rely on that report, but it has to be a report of an actual FELONY not a MISDEMEANOR. i.e YOU saw someone shoot someone who was screaming in terror of being shot, now such a report is a report of a FELONY and the police can rely on a caller's report to enter the house and investigate, but if all that is reported is a gunshot and a Scream, Where is the Felony? One may have occurred, one may NOT have occurred. It is an important difference in the law.

Remember the above is based on you Identifying yourself and telling the Police what you saw. If the person making the report refuse to give a name, then the police have no reliable evidence that anything is going on. Most police will still investigate, but will NOT enter someone's property without that person's permission (Implied or expressively granted).

Now if the Police heard the Shots and the Scream, they have the right to enter the property for they themselves are acting on what they themselves heard. Police can enter someone's property for a violation of a misdemeanor IF THE POLICE THEMSELVES SAW OR HEARD THE MISDEMEANOR. Thus if the Police heard the Shots or the Scream they can enter just to investigate the misdemeanor of shooting a gun OR disturbing the peace (i.e. the Screaming) but the Police can NOT do that based on someone's report if all that is being reported is a Misdemeanor.

Yes, Misdemeanors and Felonies are handled different when it comes to the Police and reports to the Police. Police have more leeway when it comes to Felonies (Even a felony reported to them and NOT seen by them) AND Misdemeanors they themselves have seen then Misdemeanors reported to them even by people to identify themselves. If the Witness refuses to Identify themselves the Police have no evidence to support ANY breaking into someone's property. No ID, no reliable report even of a Felony.

[peace13]

13. The best way to stop a drunk driver is to not let him/her get behind the wheel.

The 'Patriot' Act dissolved our rights and liberties. Let's stop the gestapo while we can. Folks, don't let people drive drunk so others can live. Don't rely on a police officer to get there before the trouble happens and don't allow the police to pull people over without cause. That is just not how our Constitution read.

[napi21]

14. Well well! Roberts doesn't get his way this time!

Roght or wrong, I'm glad to see he can't always persuade his associates to OBEY!!!

[depakid]

18. The majority likely didn't see a federal question involved

Roberts on the other hand is the quintessential judicial activist- and like many DUer's apparently- would put a major and wide ranging precedent that would affect all sorts of state laws across the country in order to ensure that drunk driver or two didn't somehow avoid the punishment that they deserve.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I'm concerned that he would even raise this issue.

The chief justice. Wow. I would expect him to know better, right or left wing.

[harmonicon]

43. don't forget about all of the blacks and hispanics!!

Heaven forbid racial profiling stop the police from doing it - if this had had a successful appeal, all it would take would be "an anonymous" tip to make "driving while black" an offense worthy of a traffic stop.

[williesgirl]

28. I agree w/the majority. Nothing like encouraging your enemies to call cops saying you're driving

drunk to get you stopped whether you've even had a drink or not. We simply cannot give police more power than they are already abusing. rec'd

[tomhayes]

29. You mean cops can't find a way to pull you over??

Ever watch an episode of Cops? They can find a "reason" to pull *anyone* over.

Drifting, tail light is dim, drug area, sticker is crooked, etc.

This does sound like a solution to a non existent problem.

[intheflow]

68. No kidding!

I'll bet I can guess the suspect's race in one try! So it's a non-existent problem only so far as choosing who to find a reason to pull over and who they don't.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. "...spoke out in vain ..."

[elehhhhna]

52. This sort of crap is the reason Europeans rightfully think we're MORANS.

[Mudoria]

72. Who cares what Europeans think?

[24601]

74. Anybody fighting for health care for one - European practices are

often used to justify single payer. But I suppose you're right, fuck 'em!

[Mz Pip]

61. Lots of signs on CA highways

"Report Drunk drivers -call 911"

There have been a couple of times where I've wanted- someone driving 90 and weaving through the lanes, too fast to get a license number - to but its against the law to use a cell phone while driving.

[mule_train]

63. they should have a cell phone trap right after those signs - lol nt

[cabluedem]

66. Its legal to use a cellphone while driving to call 911. nt

[struggle4progress]

70. Here's the Court of Appeals decision:

JOSEPH A. MOSES HARRIS, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
Record No. 2320-06-2
FEBRUARY 5, 2008
... Harris moved to suppress the evidence, arguing Officer Picard corroborated only the innocent details of the tip and lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The Commonwealth made three alternative arguments against suppression. It argued first that dicta .. permitted a seizure of the driver reported to be intoxicated without corroboration of the anonymous tip. It argued second that, even if corroboration of the
tip was required, Officer Picard had sufficient corroboration for the stop based on his observations of the vehicle's erratic braking. It argued third that the vehicle's erratic braking, standing alone, provided probable cause for a traffic stop for improper driving ... The sole issue on appeal is whether, based on the anonymous tip received from the dispatcher and Officer Picard's subsequent personal observations, Picard had reasonable suspicion to seize or detain Harris while he was parked on the side of the road ... http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2320062...

The Appeals court upheld the conviction

Here's the SCOVa decision:

JOSEPH A. MOSES HARRIS, JR. v.COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
OPINION BY JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN
Record No. 080437
... we consider whether an anonymous tip, combined with observations by a police officer, provided the .. reasonable suspicion required to conduct an investigative traffic stop in compliance with the Fourth Amendment ... The informant .. was not known to the police nor did he or she personally appear before a police officer. Thus, the informant was not subjecting himself or herself to possible arrest if the information provided .. proved false. See Code § 18.2-461. In other words, the informant .. could "lie with impunity" ... In testifying .. about Harris’ driving behavior, Officer Picard did not describe Harris’ driving as erratic ... <pdf:> http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1080437...

SCOVa overturned the conviction

[struggle4progress]

73. Roberts' political grandstanding is unattractive behavior from the Chief Justice

Everyone (including the SCOVa justices and Roberts' SCOTUS colleagues) will agree we want to keep drunk drivers off the road, just as we want to discourage other crimes

At question in the Harris appeals is the quality of evidence required to justify police action. And this question really cannot be resolved in hindsight. It is clear, for example, that if police were allowed to detain absolutely anyone on the slightest suspicion, then we could detect a certain amount of criminal activity that is not currently detected, but this could be accompanied only by extensive and unwarranted police intrusions into the lives of many innocents. At the other extreme, if police were required to develop a water-tight criminal case before detaining anyone, it would be almost impossible to arrest anyone for any crime. The issue is then where to draw the line and (more particularly) what "reasonable suspicion" means

In the Harris case, the state argued that an anonymous tip, together with two or three observations such as Harris “slowed down” at an intersection although he had the right of way, provided reasonable suspicion of a crime. The Appeals court upheld, but did not consider the opinion important enough to publish. A divided SCOVa demurred

By declining review, SCOTUS has certainly not endorsed the SCOVa decision and certainly does not touch any law outside Virginia, since a SCOVa decision affects Virginia only. Since Roberts knows that, his attempt to turn the case into a national issue is really rather embarrassing. It may still be worth asking, What impact will the SCOVa ruling have in Virginia? And perhaps the correct answer is: in a limited number of cases in Virginia, an effort to identify otherwise anonymous informants and assess their credibility may strengthen law enforcement efforts. I know that if I call my local police, regarding accidents or other incidents that do not affect me directly, they want my name, address, and phone number -- and I'd bet they do a quick database check. With such an easy fix available, the non-grandstanding members of SCOTUS had no good reason to waste the Court's time second-guessing SCOVa