Is an anonymous tip about reckless driving enough for police to make a traffic stop?

[NoStateofMind]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says it will weigh whether a motorist's anonymous tip about reckless driving is enough for police to pull over a car, without an officer's corroboration of dangerous driving.

The justices said Tuesday they will take up an appeal by two men who pleaded to guilty to transporting marijuana after California Highway Patrol officers pulled over their silver Ford 150 pickup based on a report of reckless driving.

The officers did not observe erratic driving, but acted after dispatchers received a 911 call saying the vehicle had run the caller off the road and identifying it by its model, color and license plate.


Officers searched the truck after smelling marijuana, found four large bags of it and arrested driver Lorenzo Prado Navarette and passenger Jose Prado Navarette.

link

Yay state! Rah rah! Go state! *pom poms*

I have little doubt that the "supreme court" will rule in favor of state mercenaries.

 

[Lithium381]

I've been pulled over for it before. Officer said he got a call that i was "driving erratically" and then asked if i was drinking. Nothing came of it. . .

 

[Nintendesert]

What's the problem? The only way to prosecute a crime is if a cop witnesses it?

 

[NoStateofMind]

What's the problem? The only way to prosecute a crime is if a cop witnesses it?

State run interventionist policy? Slippery slope? BS reason for stop?

Nope, nothing wrong with that.

 

[ussfletcher]

A few weeks ago my father was driving me to the airport and there was a car "driving" pretty erratically infront of us. They were stopped at green lights, driving on the oncoming side of the road at various points. We called the police in the car and surprisingly within 60 seconds there was a police cruiser tailing us (I guess they were pretty close). They got behind the offending driver to observe her for about 45 seconds before finally trying to pull her over.

In essence, yes.

 

[brycejones]

So OP if the driver was acting in an "immoral" fashion what would be the proper procedure in your utopia to address the situation?

Anarchist420, feel free to jump in here. You two seem to share the same idea of what a "perfect" society would be.

 

[waggy]

I have called in people i thought needed it. We were behind a guy who was weiving all over the road. called the cops on him. they pulled him over. come to find out it was a ER doc on the phone.

 

[NoStateofMind]

So OP if the driver was acting in an "immoral" fashion what would be the proper procedure in your utopia to address the situation?

1. Explain what "acting immoral" means.

2. Who is claiming "utopia"?

You won't answer either of them. You're just here to snipe.

 

[NoStateofMind]

A few weeks ago my father was driving me to the airport and there was a car "driving" pretty erratically infront of us. They were stopped at green lights, driving on the oncoming side of the road at various points. We called the police in the car and surprisingly within 60 seconds there was a police cruiser tailing us (I guess they were pretty close). They got behind the offending driver to observe her for about 45 seconds before finally trying to pull her over.

In essence, yes.

I have called in people i thought needed it. We were behind a guy who was weiving all over the road. called the cops on him. they pulled him over. come to find out it was a ER doc on the phone.

The issue isn't whether they were pulled over. The question should be "did the state mercenary witness the weaving/driving erratically"?

 

[Kadarin]

In order for the DA to get a conviction, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. An anonymous tip alone doesn't sound like enough to convince a jury.

 

[Double Trouble]

The cop isn't arresting or citing someone based on some anonymous tip, they are simply pulling someone over based on a report of erratic driving. The report itself has to be verifiable (ie, there's a record of a call reporting that vehicle) to avoid bogus "we got an anonymous call" as a blanket excuse for pulling over anyone.

If the officer does not observe any illegal activities and no evidence of such is found, the driver is essentially inconvenienced for about 5 minutes before they are back on the road.

 

[jpeyton]

It's enough to make them pull you over, but any ticket they write will be dismissed unless the person who witnessed it comes to traffic court.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Posting in a NSOM420 thread.

 

[brycejones]

1. Explain what "acting immoral" means.

2. Who is claiming "utopia"?

You won't answer either of them. You're just here to snipe.

For the sake of arguement the erratic driver is putting others at risk by driving dangerously.

Your "utopia' is a society without government where everyone acts as you've said before in a "moral" fashion whatever that means. In that world view of yours I want to know how someone like a dangerous driver would be handled. This should be easy for you to explain if you've fully worked out how you think society should work.

 

[NetGuySC]

I would not have a problem with it if the witness were forced to appeared in court to testify as to what he saw. Having an anonymous witness that neither has to testify in court or be cross examined is a huge problem to me.

True the cop is only stopping someone not arresting at that point. I still have a problem with the anonymous witness part of the whole issue. If something went wrong with the stop, I want to be able to drag a witness into court and possibly hold that person liable for their actions.

 

[Nintendesert]

I would not have a problem with it if the witness were forced to appeared in court to testify as to what he saw. Having an anonymous witness that neither has to testify in court or be cross examined is a huge problem to me.

It's a huge problem for the US Constitution too. That's not what the OP was crying about though.

 

[NoStateofMind]

For the sake of arguement the erratic driver is putting others at risk by driving dangerously.

Sure is.

Your "utopia' is a society without government where everyone acts as you've said before in a "moral" fashion whatever that means.

Two things. Anarchy is not utopia and never will be. There is always the element of some being violent or committing fraud. Secondly, are you saying you don't know what it is to be moral?

In that world view of yours I want to know how someone like a dangerous driver would be handled. This should be easy for you to explain if you've fully worked out how you think society should work.

Statist thought maintains that there must be one certain way that things must be handled. The very meaning of Anarchy is that there are no rulers and therefore no set "rule". So its not "easy to explain" anything because what I think should happen is not what someone else may think. Yeah the statist brain will go in a tizzy and pronounce that since we don't know all the answers then we should just stay the way it is. Essentially condoning evil (in the broad sense of things).

How should a drunk driver be handled? I'm not entirely sure. Was he seen to be causing havok? Does he pose a threat to innocent bystanders? We must be very careful as to not infringe on the rights of the driver to be free and also not allow an accident. Maybe their insurance contract has a clause requiring him to comply with a stop if two or more witnesses (the neighborhood protector would have to confirm this) see him driving erratically. As mentioned above there is no one way for this to be handled. I'm willing to guess the best idea you could come up with is "What we have now"...am I correct? Confirming that a statist mind almost always chooses a statist position.

 

[NoStateofMind]

It's a huge problem for the US Constitution too. That's not what the OP was crying about though.

Oh am I crying?

Let me guess I'm not on your christmas card list? lmao

 

[piasabird]

I say no. A man has a right to face his accuser in court. No accuser and no evidence means not guilty. Do you believe everything you see on the Internet?

However, it may be enough to open an investigation or question the person or look for evidence. I got an even better question. What if the cops pulled you over in you car and downloaded your info from your onboard computer in your car to use as evidence. What if that convicted you?

I think if you get a ticket for drunk driving your car should be impounded. If you are found guilty, the car should be crushed. I dont drink at all and being drunk and driving is a crime. Drunken drivers kill people.

 

[brycejones]

Statist thought maintains that there must be one certain way that things must be handled. The very meaning of Anarchy is that there are no rulers and therefore no set "rule". So its not "easy to explain" anything because what I think should happen is not what someone else may think. Yeah the statist brain will go in a tizzy and pronounce that since we don't know all the answers then we should just stay the way it is. Essentially condoning evil (in the broad sense of things).

How should a drunk driver be handled? I'm not entirely sure. Was he seen to be causing havok? Does he pose a threat to innocent bystanders? We must be very careful as to not infringe on the rights of the driver to be free and also not allow an accident. Maybe their insurance contract has a clause requiring him to comply with a stop if two or more witnesses (the neighborhood protector would have to confirm this) see him driving erratically. As mentioned above there is no one way for this to be handled. I'm willing to guess the best idea you could come up with is "What we have now"...am I correct? Confirming that a statist mind almost always chooses a statist position.

The neighborhood protector - What is this role? How is determined who it is? What authority does this role have how is this authority derived?

I'm genuinely curious about how you envision your view of what a society should be working.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The neighborhood protector - What is this role? How is determined who it is? What authority does this role have how is this authority derived?

Not everyone will have the will or the means to protect themselves. Say there is a group of people, tom, dick and harry. They are all non-violent folk and can hardly raise a whimper when someone insults them (this is exaggerated for purposes of understanding). Even more they choose not to own guns. They know a guy named bob down the street who happens to be in great shape, never known to back down from anyone and has shown the ability to fairly arbitrate situations. Tom, dick and harry pay bob a protection fee. Being directly paid by those he protects means that bob has a vested interest in the welfare of his customers by way of financial compensation. Contracts are drawn so everyone knows what is covered, what his responsibilities are and also contracted with a third party arbitrator in the case that the defendant has also contracted protection. The protector does not have the right to aggress on anyone simply because he is a protector (unlike what we have today) but is in place to provide defensive force should tom, dick or harry be assaulted. No "authority" is needed. Only common sense individuals able to reason together.

You might try to claim that "police" of today are "directly paid" but that would be incorrect. We cannot cut off their pay because its first stolen from us and given to them. How many times have we paid for some "officer of the law" to take paid leave after committing some heinous act? A moral society would not entertain such lunacy. The power would truly be in the hands of the people.

But again I must make clear. Anarchy has no set rules. My understanding can and may be quite different than that of others.

I'm genuinely curious about how you envision your view of what a society should be working.

If you are genuinely interested you can start by reading/listening to the books listed in my sig. Good place to start.

 

[Richard N]

I can see it now, some cop wants to pull over a blonde with big tits so he whips out his personal cell phone and calls in an erratic driver.

In all seriousness, if the caller claims some harm was done like being run off the road and leaves their name/ number then I would expect the police to investigate. For "driving erratically" (which leaves a lot to personal interpretation) and the police did not witness any problem, then no, they do not have enough cause for a stop.

 

[LightPattern]

For the sake of arguement the erratic driver is putting others at risk by driving dangerously.

Your "utopia' is a society without government where everyone acts as you've said before in a "moral" fashion whatever that means. In that world view of yours I want to know how someone like a dangerous driver would be handled. This should be easy for you to explain if you've fully worked out how you think society should work.

I've engaged with NSoM before and he's come out and (sensibly) admitted he hasn't got all the answers.

That said, I do hear a superior attitude in his replies sometimes.

 

[LightPattern]

If you are genuinely interested you can start by reading/listening to the books listed in my sig. Good place to start.

In the first minute of the first video in your sig - it mentions the State competing with private enterprise for resources.

This seems in agreement with my pointing out to you that your vision can't succeed in a world with limited resources. Anyone willing & able to use force will do so in order to claim a portion of those resources available when it is necessary for survival.
If you remove the need to compete for limited resources, everyone can act morally as you would like, without fear of the State or God.

I'll keep reading and listening (I've a bit of time right now). From what I've read and heard so far I am probably more geolibertarian than anarcho-capitalist.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I've engaged with NSoM before and he's come out and (sensibly) admitted he hasn't got all the answers.

To claim otherwise would not only be a lie but also compromise my position.

That said, I do hear a superior attitude in his replies sometimes.

I'm glad you brought this up because I wanted to address it but didn't know when to do so.

I absolutely do express a superior attitude at times. When you've explained self ownership and moral principles to someone and they still hold to accepting evil as a standard in mind then I have no regrets of admonishing the wicked. If they at the very least try to reason through their preconceived ideas (in other words, not brain dead) then I am willing to discuss and explain as much as I possibly can. Obviously there is a limit to what I can provide, at some point they will have to seek knowledge on their own. An inquisitive mind can be tolerated but one that is firmly entrenched in statist dogma not only is a futile endeavour but also a huge waste of time. You'll have to excuse my disdain for those that love their myopic mind.