Anonymous tips alleging DUI: Supreme Court refuses case
In the recent DUI case of Virginia v. Harris (PDF), the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case regarding the Virginia Supreme Court's decision to reverse a drunk driving conviction because the police officer who stopped Harris did so based on an anonymous tip and he did not witness any swerving or motor vehicle violations.
The highest court in Virginia ruled that stopping Harris without observing any erratic or illegal operation, based solely on the anonymous tip, violated his 4th Amendment constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. It seems that by deciding not to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court was essentially tacitly agreeing with the Virginia court. However, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia strongly dissented with the majority decision of the Court. The dissenting justices claim that
[t]he effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers ‘one free swerve’ before they can legally be pulled over by police...
In numerous cases, Massachusetts courts had previously established that an anonymous tip generally cannot justify a motor vehicle stop by police. However, this general rule is not without exception and, in some cases, the police will be justified in stopping a motor vehicle based on a citizen's report, even where the officer might not have observed erratic or dangerous driving. Nevertheless, this is an important issue in any Massachusetts DUI case and a skilled attorney may be able to suppress evidence and obtain a dismissal or not guilty verdict on the basis that an anonymous tip did not provide sufficient justification to infringe on a driver's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures.
This entire issue angers me. How much harder are we going to make it for the police to catch drunk drivers???? Driving is a privledge, not a right! It should not matter how drunk drivers are taken off the road as long as they are taken off the road! To imply that just because an officer stops the vehicle based on an anonymous tip somehow makes the person innocent is absurd and the Virginia and Supreme court should recognize this! Of course this will all change when that driver kills an innocent person becuase the police were unable to stop the vehicle based on the anonymous tip. And of course it will somehow be the officer's fault for not making that stop.
This issue angers me as well. However, as a police officer, my take is this: Any officer who feels strongly about drunk driving should be intimately familiar with their respective state's vehicle code. ANY legitimate traffic or equipment violation is a valid reason to stop a vehicle. Any legitimate offense observed by an officer gives the 'skilled attorney' one less tool. Despite what the author believes, the USSJC simply refused to hear the case. That leaves states with more common sense than Massachusetts or Virginia free to determine for themselves what constitutes a legitimate reason to stop a car.
Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights affords citizens here more rights than the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution does. For example, in Commonwealth v. Lyons, 409 Mass. 16, an anonymous tipster reported that Wayne Lyons would be driving a silver Hyundai automobile from Chelsea, Massachusetts to Bridgeton, Maine and he would be transporting cocaine. The tipster provided Lyons' plate number: Maine Registration 440-44T.
Based on the tip, police stopped Lyons, searched his vehicle and discovered the drugs. The SJC declared that the stop was invalid because the police were not able to demonstrate the informant's basis of knowledge and reliability.
In the area of Massachusetts OUI stops, the identity of the tipster is still a legitimate judicial concern. However, OUI stops based on anonymous tips where there is an indicia of drunk driving are upheld under the "emergency" exception to the warrant requirement. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Davis, a Barnstable, MA case where a detail officer stopped woman who was visibly intoxicated and just left a liquor serving establishment. She was seen throwing beer cans out of the vehicle as she drove off. The court ruled that the stop was permissible because there was evidence of intoxication independent of operation.
I cant beleive that people think giving up the fourth ammendment is needed so police can stop a drunk driver.If the tip is correct and the driver is impaired dont you think trained police minutes later would see the same thing,or that the officer can find one traffic violation or equipment violation out of the hundreds of different possible violations to choose from?I dont think i should be pulled over because a nameless person said so .....if this is ok than everybody will use this to settle there problems or make life easier EXAMPLE:dont want the boss around the office for awhile call him in dui when he leaves for lunch.Or how about the ex wants the kids on a day you want them ...just call her in dui...or how about the prosecuter on his way to your motion to surpress hearing.....THIS IS WRONG AND UNAMERICAN...police can do there job and find plenty of reasons to pull over vehicles legally without violating our constitution.