U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Anonymous Tip

[Fargo]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf

Nothing new, if the anonymous tip passes the test of reliability, which SCOTUS set forth decades ago, it can be used as the basis of an investigatory stop.

Not it by a state/local cop in Indiana. Indiana has a very different standard than the Feds.

 

[BE Mike]

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.

I'm not sure that the driver of the vehicle in the case was ever charged with DUI. It did say that he plead guilty of possession of marijuana.

 

[BE Mike]

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.

Thanks for the insight regarding the 911 system. It only happened once and it was quite some time ago. Because the officer appeared to be somewhat officious, I didn't invite him in. A seasoned officer would probably have generated a kinder reception from me. To get him out of my hair and help him on his way, I had the wife go to the door to ease the young officer's mind.

 

[printcraft]

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

Weird, I don't remember any sheep but I was taking your wife and daughter out for a nice steak dinner about that same time..........

 

[88GT]

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.

I know this ruling doesn't affect domicile entrance. I was trying to get an idea of just how much authority LE had in over areas associated with the 4th as it relates to 9-1-1 calls from someone not involved who claims to have seen but for which no verification of said claim can take place.

 

[Denny347]

I know this ruling doesn't affect domicile entrance. I was trying to get an idea of just how much authority LE had in over areas associated with the 4th as it relates to 9-1-1 calls from someone not involved who claims to have seen but for which no verification of said claim can take place.

As a general rule, anonymous calls are treated with due caution. We've found everything from bogus calls to homicide victims all from anonymous callers. Our investigation is in direct proportion to the callers level of involvement. An anonymous call about drug dealing gets a drive through and little else.

 

[findingZzero]

Weird, I don't remember any sheep but I was taking your wife and daughter out for a nice steak dinner about that same time..........

And they told me they were going bowling...