The Supreme Court heard oral argument today on the case of Navarette v.-California, a case which will define the level of “reasonable suspicion” that is required to pull somebody over.
The facts are simple. Someone anonymously called 911 on a truck that cut them off, but didn’t cause an accident. Then, law enforcement up the road saw the truck (or thought he did), pulled over the vehicle, found weed in the car, and arrested and charged the occupants with drug possession, for which they were committed.
Navarette argued on appeal that there was no reasonable suspicion to pull over the vehicle, (a requirement for a “Terry Stop“) because the officer observed no misconduct. It was allegedly just an anonymous tip. The State of California argued that if the Court overturns this conviction, then anonymous tips are now meaningless.
The real issue here is: “is there a bright line of “reasonable suspicion” under the 4th Amendment. Can the suspicion be based on what someone said (and, mind you, won’t be held accountable for if they are lying). Can a police officer say “oh, I had a tip about this guy” and then just forego all our rights under the 4th Amendment? Is there going to be any reason as an honest citizen to report suspicious activity anymore? We will see.
Follow me on Twitter at @DavidTDorer. Like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/DavidThomasDorer