  Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 9126 Registered: 12-2003 |
Whether the courts may allow the police to intervene with anonymous cellphone tips on drunk drivers. I LOVE it when the defendant's attorney calls the judge a drunk... quote: Why the FUCK should that matter? Why should the judge consider herself above the law?! How could that even be a consideration when a citizen phones in a notice of some potential crime being committed...including radical and dangerous driving of ANY form or sort?! Officers specifically DON'T need to know who the fuck they are pulling over, and the also don't need to know the person's entire record...only if they have proven dangerous in the past. Kinda reminds one of the cocaine-case corruption that just took out a prosecutor and judge here, while we await news of the depth of corruption throughout the courts via McNamara/Cheeks/Kilpatrick associates. Perhaps regular citizenry should review case law to see how this mainstay of western civilization is tainted by those who only got into the law in order to stay above it! | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 3008 Registered: 08-2007 |
Just because the attorney made that (ridiculous) argument does not mean the judge agreed that he should be above the law. He ruled that the officer had insufficient evidence of erratic driving based upon observation. If you cannot produce the witness to the erratic driving, you do have a problem. Still, I thought there was a policy that you could phone in anonymous tips. Edited to add in judge's ruling and thoughts about that. (Message edited by gazhekwe on March 25, 2009) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3727 Registered: 07-2004 |
Don't we have the right to face our accuser? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3805 Registered: 06-2008 |
Gannon: I think you are way off the point. The attorney's argument was not meant to imply that the judge is above the law. The point of the argument was to point out how such grounds for a stop and search can be prone to abuse and thus amount to an invasion of privacy. By framing the argument in terms of the judge being pulled over, the attorney was asking the judge to imagine himself in the shoes of a hypothetical victim of an unreasonable police search in an effort to persuade the judge that the attorney's argument had merit. The attorney was basically saying, "Judge, under this system, I could report you to the police and have you pulled over just to be a dick, even if I know you have done nothing wrong." (Message edited by thejesus on March 25, 2009) | ||
Goose Member Username: Goose Post Number: 109 Registered: 02-2005 |
thank you thejesus for displaying logic...... | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7957 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yet in Detroit the police will not accept a report of a break-in of a house or car, if it is not your own. | ||
Detroitred Member Username: Detroitred Post Number: 24 Registered: 02-2009 |
The attorneys point is that the Police Officers didn't gather the required information on the person who called them. So her argument is that if the callers remain anonymous, then anybody can call the police on any person for any reason, and never face ramifications if their call was unwarranted. In this case it is an interesting question because the Officer observed no driving errors of the driver before pulling him over. So she went completely off the tip of another driver, one who was not questioned for his own information. The attorneys argument is not really ridiculous, I think its very interesting. | ||
Detroitred Member Username: Detroitred Post Number: 25 Registered: 02-2009 |
Thejesus... Sorry for stepping on your toes. Your post wasn't there before I started typing. But I'm right w/ you... | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3806 Registered: 06-2008 |
^great minds think alike : ) | ||
Ro_resident Member Username: Ro_resident Post Number: 226 Registered: 11-2003 |
This standard of evidence in Michigan is part of the reason that red light running cameras and speeding cameras are not allowed here. Basically, an officer has to witness the alleged act. A surrogate may not be enough for there to be probable cause, hence this ruling. Not a lawyer, but sat through a lot of public meetings regarding allowing 'unstaffed enforcement' a few years ago. This issue came up at a number of the meetings. The lawyers at that time described how a number of reckless driving tickets were voided by judges because the officers only witnessed the aftermath. Not the actual poor driving that lead to a car ending up in a ditch or in the middle of a living room. | ||
Cloud_wall Member Username: Cloud_wall Post Number: 55 Registered: 02-2009 |
An officer doesn't have to witness the act. An officer can act on an anonymous tip. However, what the defense attorney was pointing out was that we require the anonymous tipster to display a modicum of reliability and accountability before probable cause is established. They have to demonstrate that their information is reliable and based on actual knowledge. Just saying, "My neighbor who lives at 555 Elm is a child molester," and hanging up isn't enough. If it was, we might not like the society in which we lived very much. Here, there's nothing to indicate the caller was reliable or in the know. So the officer should have just waited for the driver to do something wrong in this particular case. I think the Jesus already said that. I don't mean to f*** with the Jesus by adding more. But there are good reasons we don't arrest citizens based solely on anonymous tips. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3807 Registered: 06-2008 |
"I don't mean to f*** with the Jesus by adding more." : D | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1943 Registered: 12-2006 |
I think it's basically fair that a policeman can't pull me over unless he sees me doing something wrong. Otherwise, let's say I really just don't like my neighbor Phil. Every time I see him in his car, I can just call the police and say, hey, Phil is driving erratically. And they should pull him over based on that? I made this same phone call only once, ever. I was driving home and the guy in front of me was using both sides of the road, forcing people onto the shoulder. I don't know if he was drunk, or having a heart attack, or having sex, or if his steering column was busted, or whatever. But I called the police, and then followed him until the police were behind me, then I pulled off the road. Later I saw they had the other guy pulled over. Now, they followed him long enough to see him driving strangely, so their traffic stop could not be nullified under this decision. But if they hadn't - if they pulled him over just on my say-so - would that be a justifiable stop? So I think in my case it went perfectly well: the police, acting on a tip (not anonymous; I told them who I am, and they know me), followed the driver until they could verify his driving was worthy of a stop, and then stopped him. That's all you need, but I think you need that much. |
