Discuss Detroit DISCUSS DETROIT! Freep's Dickerson Ponders a Modern Legal Quandary Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 9126
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 10:50 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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:

At an evidentiary hearing last month, Bloomfield Hills attorney Kirsten Neilsen Hartig, who represents the Lumina driver, argued that police had no reason to stop the Lumina driver before they had made any effort to verify the tipster's identity, even by asking the tipster for his birth date or address.

"They didn't know who this person was," she told Troy District Judge William Bolle, adding that Hermiz could have been using a phony name. "Under that standard, Judge, I could get you stopped, because there's no ramification for giving false information."






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!
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 3008
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 10:55 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 3727
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:15 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't we have the right to face our accuser?
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 3805
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:15 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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)
Top of pageBottom of page

Goose
Member
Username: Goose

Post Number: 109
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:19 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

thank you thejesus for displaying logic......
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 7957
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:23 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitred
Member
Username: Detroitred

Post Number: 24
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:23 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitred
Member
Username: Detroitred

Post Number: 25
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:27 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thejesus... Sorry for stepping on your toes. Your post wasn't there before I started typing. But I'm right w/ you...
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 3806
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:30 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^great minds think alike : )
Top of pageBottom of page

Ro_resident
Member
Username: Ro_resident

Post Number: 226
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:38 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cloud_wall
Member
Username: Cloud_wall

Post Number: 55
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 11:58 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 3807
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 12:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I don't mean to f*** with the Jesus by adding more."

: D
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1943
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 1:25 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
Only registered users may post messages on the DetroitYES forums. To register click the JOIN button on the Forum Menu at http://detroityes.com to obtain a free account.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: