U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Anonymous Tip

[88GT]

What BBI said.

Great. So y'all will be sure to respond quickly to get the slow-driving douchebag out of my way when I call him in for trying to run me off the road, right? Even though he wasn't really trying to run me off the road. But don't let that stop you from detaining him and bothering him for 30 minutes while you figure out I just used LE to my benefit.

There is nothing good about this ruling, now matter how some want to dress it up.

And you you didn't answer my question at the end of my last post.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Great. So y'all will be sure to respond quickly to get the slow-driving douchebag out of my way when I call him in for trying to run me off the road, right? Even though he wasn't really trying to run me off the road. But don't let that stop you from detaining him and bothering him for 30 minutes while you figure out I just used LE to my benefit.

No situation is ever perfect or 88GT proof. There will always be false reporting. A society at some point needs to say "good enough", and it has.

 

[88GT]

No situation is ever perfect or 88GT proof. There will always be false reporting. A society at some point needs to say "good enough", and it has.

That's exactly why I find this ruling so damn disturbing, doc. It was good enough before. Now it's ****ing horrible.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Suppose 88GT calls in to 911 and makes a report that she's been run off the road and some guy in a black GMC with an INGO sticker in the back glass did it. She gives what she claims is her identification, etc. Is that all that is required for Denny to subsequently pull me over and detain me while he explores whether a crime just happened/happening?

Or does there have to be some minimum confirmation that 88GT did actually get run off the road? Some damage to her or or her vehicle, skid marks on the street, grass mussed up, etc. by Denny before Denny takes off after that black GMC with the INGO sticker in the back glass?

What if, in either of those above, it was a witness making the phone call rather than the victim?

If it's the later, whether it was the victim or a witness that called, I have no problem. If it's the former, yeah Scalia is right on this: it's a freedom-destroying cocktail alright.

 

[churchmouse]

This is going to become a tool of the angry and butt-hurt. It will tie up LEO on senseless and meaningless investigations most of the time. I am sure there will be some merit in some of the "Tips" but the way society is leaning these days it will become a prank or vindictive tool.

Tattle tattle.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I don't think so at all. I don't think a thing will change. Why would it?

 

[jamil]

A question for the cops. If I call 911 and say some guy roadraged me, and I give a description and tag number, and you spot the vehicle driving on the highway and you don't notice any agressive behavior, would you stop him?

 

[churchmouse]

I don't think so at all. I don't think a thing will change. Why would it?

You might be right. I have called in on drunk drivers before (2 times) and both times they drove right by on duty LEO and no response.

 

[Denny347]

A question for the cops. If I call 911 and say some guy roadraged me, and I give a description and tag number, and you spot the vehicle driving on the highway and you don't notice any agressive behavior, would you stop him?

If the caller is not following giving the "play by play"...no. For Indy, someone anonymous calls 911 about a bad driver, it gets broadcast as INFO only and not a dispatched run. We don't respond to INFO only runs unless we see the vehicle doing what the caller accused them of. We don't have the time to care.

 

[88GT]

I don't think so at all. I don't think a thing will change. Why would it?

It probably won't simply because the vast majority of people aren't aware of the change. But if people knew that a simple phone call could make life hurt, even if only for a few minutes, for the guy who pissed them off while driving, I guarantee there would be an uptick in phone calls.

Indy seems to have a policy that renders the Court's ruling somewhat irrelevant. Which is good. But the ruling itself is still BS through and through.

I'm going to ask it again: can LE forcibly enter a home on an anonymous tip, in the absence of a warrant or presenting exigent circumstances?

 

[findingZzero]

I think I saw PrintCraft dry humping a sheep off 70 on the way to Greenfield. And there were children in the car.

 

[BE Mike]

The traffic stop IS INVESTIGATING AN EVENT. An investigatory stop is an investigatory stop if you're on foot, on a bicycle, or in a car. You are still briefly detaining someone to establish if criminal activity is afoot, in this case the ongoing crime of DUI.

There is no requirement that the officer observe a crime. If you run out of a store and say "the guy in that truck just robbed me", did I witness the crime? Can I make an investigatory stop on that vehicle? Of course. The question is do I have reasonable suspicion if criminal activity is afoot, not did I see a crime. There's a metric butt-ton of case law out there about establishing the reliability of an informant. Known informants are automatically given more credibility than anonymous informants, but either can be used to reach the bar of reasonable suspicion if other criteria are met. Specific information, how the informant knows the information, predictive ability of the informant, etc. etc.

Doesn't an officer need to witness a crime to make an arrest, without a warrant, if it is a misdemeanor?

 

[BE Mike]

It probably won't simply because the vast majority of people aren't aware of the change. But if people knew that a simple phone call could make life hurt, even if only for a few minutes, for the guy who pissed them off while driving, I guarantee there would be an uptick in phone calls.

Indy seems to have a policy that renders the Court's ruling somewhat irrelevant. Which is good. But the ruling itself is still BS through and through.

I'm going to ask it again: can LE forcibly enter a home on an anonymous tip, in the absence of a warrant or presenting exigent circumstances?

I had something a little similar happen a couple of years ago. I got a knock on the door. A young uniformed officer announced that a 911 call had come from my residence. I said that no one from our house had called 911. The officer insisted on seeing everyone in the house to determine that everyone was ok. I still don't know what happened. I don't know whether the officer was at the wrong address or somehow the 911 dispatcher made a mistake.

 

[jamil]

I think I saw PrintCraft dry humping a sheep off 70 on the way to Greenfield. And there were children in the car.

And you didn't stop to get video? You could have had a youtube viral hit!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Doesn't an officer need to witness a crime to make an arrest, without a warrant, if it is a misdemeanor?

Sort of. IC says 'committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor in the officer's presence.' There are misdemeanor exceptions, certain crimes that don't have to be in the officer's presence like "hit and run" or "invasion of privacy", and juveniles aren't covered. However that's a different matter than a detention and investigation. Felonies and civil infractions have no such requirement.

So, in order for a LEO who's authority comes from IC, in order to make a custodial arrest for a misdemeanor you need PC and one of the following:

A) Offender is a juvenile
B) Crime is listed in 35-33-1 as a misdemeanor exception
C) Crime occurred (or was attempted) in officer's presence

Examples:

1) You're an adult and just spray painted a wall. Half an hour later, you return to get in your car in the parking lot and the business owner sees you. Business owner flags down cop, points you out, and says you just vandalized his store. Criminal mischief isn't a misdemeanor exception, the crime did not occur in my presence, and you are an adult. I can still detain you and investigate the crime, then release you and seek a warrant, but I cannot do a custodial arrest at that point.

2) You're an adult and just struck a parked car and left without leaving a note. Bystander flags down cop, points you out, and says you just hit a parked car. Failing to leave your information at the scene is a misdemeanor exception. Not only can I detain and investigate, I can make an arrest if I develop probable cause, regardless of if it happened in my presence or not.

Neither apply to this case, even if their state has the same law regarding misdemeanors. The DUI was an ongoing crime occurring in the officer's presence. Once again the only question is was there reasonable suspicion for the stop.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I had something a little similar happen a couple of years ago. I got a knock on the door. A young uniformed officer announced that a 911 call had come from my residence. I said that no one from our house had called 911. The officer insisted on seeing everyone in the house to determine that everyone was ok. I still don't know what happened. I don't know whether the officer was at the wrong address or somehow the 911 dispatcher made a mistake.

They could have the wrong address, but also:

1) If you buy a telephone over IP device (like Magic Jack) you can put whatever address you want into it. If someone were making repeated calls, it would likely be investigated. Make one call, its unlikely. Someone with a Magic Jack may have accidentally dialed and hung up.

and by far more common:

2) Cell phones. 911 and a quick hang up will give a general location to E911. With an emergency subpeona you can get better data, but a hangup with nothing said won't warrant a subpeona. Its possible the location data was off enough to put it at your house when it really should have been on a nearby street or house.

If it happens, ask what number the call came from. We had one lady who insisted she wasn't calling 911, but we were getting MULTIPLE calls and the number was her house phone. It turned out her cordless phone was shorting out and sending random signals, which would occasionally be the emergency button (it had a speed dial 911 button on it). Once she unplugged that phone, the calls stopped.

 

[indyblue]

. . .
Can you enter a home on an anonymous tip of wrong-doing without any corroboration? Serious question. I don't know the limits of forced entry by LE for something they don't actively see themselves.

Apparently, yes.

Read more at Officers seize dozens of marijuana plants from Broad Ripple home | Fox 59 News ? fox59.com

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (April 23, 2014)—Two people are in custody following a drug bust at a Broad Ripple home Wednesday evening.

Narcotics officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department served search warrants at a house in the 5900 block of Crittendon Avenue, after police said they received an anonymous tip.
Police told FOX59 more than 200 marijuana plants were seized.
Indiana State Police is assisting IMPD in dismantling the operation.

 

[88GT]

Apparently, yes.

Read more at Officers seize dozens of marijuana plants from Broad Ripple home | Fox 59 News ? fox59.com

​

They had search warrants. That's different. There's an entire discussion to be had regarding the validity of warrants originating from anonymous tips, but there was still a warrant. What I want to know is whether a 9-1-1 call (anonymous or not) is enough to give LE the authority to forcibly enter a home sans warrant and presenting exigent circumstances?

 

[Denny347]

What I want to know is whether a 9-1-1 call (anonymous or not) is enough to give LE the authority to forcibly enter a home sans warrant and presenting exigent circumstances?

NO

This decision addressed the STOP only. I would wager that a search based on that stop only would be illegal. The smell of Marijuana was PC for the search. The stop based on a 911 call will be VERY limited is time and scope...much like a seatbelt stop. Minus RS, talking is about as much as an officer will be legally allowed to do. Forcing the driver to produce ID will be in the gray area since you are investigating an infraction (technically) but you did not witness it so I think that would be an easy defense if the driver was cited for refusal to identify. It's not a quagmire I want to get trapped in.

 

[Fargo]

Let's all keep in mind that, as Kirk pointed out, this ruling does not really change anything as far as the law enforcement of the state of Indiana. These stops are still not legal here outside of fed court.