the 4th amendment (and case law) doesn’t require that in all stops, a crime ACTUALLY had to occur.

the standard is this. and it’s the same for ALL crimes

1) for a stop, you need reasonable suspicion
2) for an arrest you need PC

in MANY cases we make stops based on reasonable suspicion, no crime has occurred and/or there is not sufficient PC to make an arrest. those stops weren’t bad or unjustified.

let me give you an example

if i see a guy in a parking lot at 2 am using a coat hanger to try to enter a car, is that reasonable suspicion ? yes.

i had one of those several months ago (i’ve been on disability since august). it turns out the guy was trying to enter his own car. no crime.

does that mean the police dept. should pay him for making a stop where no crime occurred? of course not

this is a PROCESS based analysis, not a results based analysis.

fwiw, i would bet most citizens want cops to stopping people for such behavior. heck, I have been the subject of suspicion stops before. they were justified, even though i had committed no crime. when i was working undercover, i often sayt in my car (a tricked out little mustang) surveilling. on one occasion, i had been surveilling by sitting in the car, occasionally using my bino’s etc. for 2 hours. a cop came up and made a stop, iow checked me out cause a citizen called in my susicious behavior. was it suspicious? of course. the cop did the right thing. the citizen did the right thing. but no crime had occurred (the cop was not ony m radio frequency, thus i did not hear the call).

we don’t ask or expect cops to have perfect knowledge. heck, we can’t even require that of a jury trial, just proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

it’s entirely likely that occasionally an innocent person will be convicted.

it is MORE likely that an innocent person will be arrested

and even MORE likely, that an innocent person will be stopped under terry v. ohio

dui’s are no different than any other crime. cops should be allowed to, and do, stop based on reasonable suspicion. unique to DUI;’s is that in MOST cases, a stop where a cop has reasonable suspicion of a crime (DUI) he ALSO has probable cause of a traffic infraction. a citizen call-in with no witnessing of erratic heavior is an exception to the witnessing of an infraction part but is still imo reasonable.

and my extensive experience is that citizen reports of DUI are HIGHLY reliable. iow, a far greater %age of these stops result in actual criminal activity vs. other suspicion stops

however, the law does not require perfect knowledge. sorry, that’s not the world we live in. if it was, it would be near impossible to investigate crime.

PubliusFL: That’s the problem with making broad conclusions based on personal experience. Myself, I’ve never personally seen one of your “infractionless stops,” but I have personally seen a number of deserved stops for legitimate driving infractions. So am I supposed to believe that my experience is anomalous based on your experience? Or are you supposed to believe that your experience is anomalous based on my experience? I’m not sure how this is supposed to work.

I have seen several, maybe even many, stops for infractions that were actually committed. Not only that, I have never seen a police officer act like a jerk or tell a lie during one of these legit infraction-based stops. Unfortunately, that isn’t what we are talking about on this thread. Rather, we are discussing stops where the LEO(s) did not witness an infraction. They happen and they are a real problem, even if you have never personally suffered from it. If you don’t believe me, then you need to get out more, widen your social circle a bit, or, failing that, check out the video I linked upthd.

Cleanville Tziabatz: Of course, when a regular citizen like me observes that the infractionless stops* I have seen personally** have never been impaired driving, I am supposed to believe that this experience is anomalous. But seriously, how many of these bogus stops do I have to observe before I know that “reasonable suspicion” is a sham in this context?

That’s the problem with making broad conclusions based on personal experience. Myself, I’ve never personally seen one of your “infractionless stops,” but I have personally seen a number of deserved stops for legitimate driving infractions. So am I supposed to believe that my experience is anomalous based on your experience? Or are you supposed to believe that your experience is anomalous based on my experience? I’m not sure how this is supposed to work.

whit . . . like i said, ime the VAST majority of citizen reports of DUI are in fact DUI. . . .

then there is no real problem in safeguarding the Fourth Amendment by making a moderate payment to those who are not dui. The payment only becomes a problem if this “vast majority” thing you say is untrue.

The exclusionary rule is a lousy remedy. It causes policemen to allege things like “vast majority” knowing that this is an unfalsifiable assertion. The only time they will get called to the carpet is when the driver really was drunk, however infrequently that may be. So they can say whatever they like and expect everyone will buy into it. When police lie about the reasonableness of their suspicions, we, as a society, have no way of knowing. In the competitive work of law enforcement there is a great motivation for policemen to lie about this (especially since 9/11 and its attendant salary bumps), and, based on that, I think they generally do.

Of course, when a regular citizen like me observes that the infractionless stops* I have seen personally** have never been impaired driving, I am supposed to believe that this experience is anomalous. But seriously, how many of these bogus stops do I have to observe before I know that “reasonable suspicion” is a sham in this context?

* I mean infractionless stops for minor driving irregularities that do not amount to infractions.

** FWIW, I have never been the driver on one of these. Always the passenger.

wannabe plaintiff says:

So if the drunk does hit someone with the cop still trailing and waiting, and plaintiff sues for not stopping the drunk, is the tort/1983 defense that the state supreme court wouldn’t let me?

No, it’s that the cops have no legal duty to protect citizens.

clearly, every additional second you follow w/o pulling the guy over, assuming he is impaired, the public is at additional risk. so, you are gathering MORE evidence, at the cost of more danger to the public. this has come up in DUI’s before, in court, in my experience. the threshold that justifies a stop is either reasonable suspicion of a crime (DUI) **or** a simple traffic infraction. one traffic infraction justifies a stop, but it doesn’t usually rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. a defense attorney has asked me on more than one occasion – how come you kept following the car once you saw it was weaving? if you thought you had reasonable suspicion, shouldn’t you have pulled it over immediately? unlike a crime like auto theft, where you can follow the suspect and watch him commit multiple crimes, there is a public safety issue here. the longer the cop follows, the BETTER the RS, but the greater the danger to the public.

clearly, like most issues in the law, there are tradeoffs. there always are.

the last time i had a citizen report of a dui, i was stopped at a red light and the guy ran up to me. yes, i got his name. he pointed ACROSS the intersection to a hummer that was receding in the distance and said it had been all over the road. every additional second i stood to talk with him, even to confirm his id, etc. was a greater chance the hummer would get away. so, i got a VERY brief synopsis, got the guy’s cell #, and blue lighted my way across the intersection. JUST as i got behind the hummer, it turned into a private lot and parked. so, i didn’t HAVE to make a stop. i could park such that he had the ability to leave, and just watch. i saw him literally FALL out of the car, at which point i walked up and could instantly detect indicia of impairment. he was LITERALLY falling down drunk. so, i was lucky. no “stop” issue, and by the time i approached him, i had excellent reasonable suspicion, plus no need to detain him, he was lying on the ground, and i needed to do community caretaking functions first anyway (is this a medical condition, etc.)

if i had followed the guy to get additional RS in addition to what the guy said (assuming he didn’t pull into the lot), the tradeoff between citizen safety and better evidence would have been in effect.

realistically speaking, the vast majority of stops cops WILL follow additionally after they find the vehicle, just to bolster the citizen report, but do i think it’s constitutionally NECESSARY? no. like i said, ime the VAST majority of citizen reports of DUI are in fact DUI. there is a high degree of reliability. citizens are not trained to look for subtle cues. and they are notoriously INattentive and clueless. iow, the ones they call in as DUI are usually off the richter scale falling down drunk ime.

Your hypothetical left out the reason why the officer stopped you in the first place. If he had no reason for the stop, it would be unconstitutional.

Sorry, the thread is about a “tip” so that is what triggered the stop.

You replied that to the effect that you have been subjected to stop(s) that may or may not have been bogus, but none that you could be sure were bogus.

Two things:

(i) if you ever are subjected to a bogus stop, believe me you will know it. You will know by the lies the policeman tells your driver. If you don’t know whether any of your stops were bogus then they weren’t.

(ii) I may have speculated, but my speculation about no-bogus-stops-for-whit turns out to have been absolutely correct. Surprise, surprise, surprise! I must be the Great Karnac or something.

you are not a mind reader, and you can’ admit you just made stuff up out of whole cloth, so i’m done wit ya!

Video? What video? We don’t know what that girl did before the camera came on! She made a wide turn, so she deserved whatever she got! She probably enjoyed the frisk part anyway. besides, I never get a reason when I have been stopped — the officer always just smiles and says “stay safe” as soon as I open my wallet. See, I have been there, too, but I just don’t whine about it./whit

I am just driving, maybe at night, minding my own business. Suddenly, a police car puts on its lights, pulls me over, asks for my papers. If he doesn’t like my “demeanor” I have to get out of the car, goe through a series of tests that are highly subjective.

I say that is more than “minimal”. All stops create tension.

Lets go further. He gives me a breathalizer but then I can’t blow enough air so he arrests me. It turns out I haven’t had a drink at all. So, I get a “sorry” from the officer.

I think an officer should have at least observed some violation before he stops me. Might as well alllow totally random stops..

Your hypothetical left out the reason why the officer stopped you in the first place. If he had no reason for the stop, it would be unconstitutional. If somebody reported a description of you or your car for drunk driving, he has reasonable suspicion to investigate long enough to confirm or dispel the concern. Again, the scope of the officer’s actions are tethered to the reasonableness standard. If, once he pulls you over, the officer observes that your eyes are bloodshot, your speech is slurred, and you reek of alcohol, it’s reasonable for him to administer sobriety tests. If, however, you exhibit none of these signs, it may very well be unreasonable for him to do so.

yes i HAVE been in a vehicle that has been stopped for no good reason … more correctly, no good reason that I could tell

unlike you, i’m not omniscient

and until YOU can construct a reasonable and honest argument, i’m done.

how you could POSSIBLY know my life experiences and whether i have been in that situation or not… answer: you don’t. you’ve gone from silly arguments to making stuff up

incredible…

nobody should have to pay jack. it’s ridiculous.

yes, sometimes people get stopped for suspicion of drunk driving who are NOT drunk (actually, it’s impaired, not drunk that is the standard, but i digress).

literally thousands of people are alive who wouldn’t be if it weren’t for DUI enforcement getting more skilled and more emphasis placed on same, mostly due to MADD i might add, not cops. MADD forced cops to take DUI’s seriously.

reasonable suspicion means just that. if you want to change the constitution to require absolute certainty for subject stops, knock yerself out.

also note that MOST dui stops (but not one’s made solely on a citizen report without observation) involve at least one traffic infraction, which justifies a stop regardless of sobriety.

also, as i’ve said, DUI[‘s are unique in that the innocent have a foolproof out. the breathalyzer. any other kind of crime one can get arrested easily just because somebody lied (think Domestic violence). DUI gives the innocent a foolproof OUT if they aren’t impaired.

whit: “By providing just a moderate monetary incentive we would ensure that police really believed and really suspected what they say they believe and say they suspect. If they are wrong once in a while — $250 ain’t the end of the world. If poster whit is to be believed, then police would never pay a dime and would be expected to have no objection to my proposal.”don’t put words into my mouth, and misstate my argument.i said that in my experience, citizen complaints of dui’s are very reliable. i never said they were 100% reliable. for pete’s sake, reasonable suspicion means just that. if you want absolute certainty, you aren’;t going to get it

At 90% reliability, you pay $250 per nine drunk drinking collars. Doesn’t seem like anything you would be complaining about . . . unless . . .

whit: . . . a brief investigative detention. . . .

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20091015/NEWS01/91015017

You mean like that one?

don’t put words into my mouth, and misstate my argument.

i said that in my experience, citizen complaints of dui’s are very reliable. i never said they were 100% reliable. for pete’s sake, reasonable suspicion means just that. if you want absolute certainty, you aren’;t going to get it

David Schwartz: I’m torn by cases like this. On the one hand, I have a lot of experience processing complaints and have found that my hunches are usually right. You can usually tell when someone is complaining just to get the person complained about in trouble. You can usually tell when a person is complaining because they’ve observed a serious problem.I wish we lived in a world where we could tell police officers that they could trust this intuition, because my bet is that it’s right far more often than it’s wrong. But unfortunately, police have lost a lot of trust, and I don’t think we can trust them to honestly report on their intuition.I wish we could set up a system with appropriate safeguards. For example, allow police to pull over reported drunk drivers, but require them to videotape all such encounters and retain them for a certain amount of time. Require the police officer to give a card that explains why they were pulled over and that this is a brief stop just to determine if they’re drunk. The card should also explain where they can complain and that a video tape will be retained if the Terry stop turns into a fishing expedition.

Or, better yet, mandate that the police pay (on the spot) $250.00 to any citizen suspected of drunk driving, but not drunk. Jack it up to $25,000.00 if the police force the citizen to go to court to get her $$$.

The possibility of such $250.00 payment would: (i) not stop the police from stopping anybody when they sincerely thought that there was a decent probability that the driver was truly dangerously drunk; (ii) would cut the fishing expeditions off right quick; and (iii) would compensate the citizen for the time and annoyance that the stop entails.

By providing just a moderate monetary incentive we would ensure that police really believed and really suspected what they say they believe and say they suspect. If they are wrong once in a while — $250 ain’t the end of the world. If poster whit is to be believed, then police would never pay a dime and would be expected to have no objection to my proposal.

No, it means that if the sober guy has a .001%* chance of causing an accident within the next mile, the guy at .08% has a .004% chance of causing an accident within the next mile.

(*from the Department of Made-Up Statistics)

But even if the report is wrong, the intrusion into the driver’s privacy and liberty interests is minimal. The cop is going to walk over to the guy’s car, talk to him and check out his demeanor, and maybe run his license and registration. At worst, the officer will conduct a field sobriety or breathalyzer test, and probably won’t go to that trouble unless the driver smells of alcohol or there is some other indication he might be drunk.

I am just driving, maybe at night, minding my own business. Suddenly, a police car puts on its lights, pulls me over, asks for my papers. If he doesn’t like my “demeanor” I have to get out of the car, goe through a series of tests that are highly subjective.

I say that is more than “minimal”. All stops create tension.

Lets go further. He gives me a breathalizer but then I can’t blow enough air so he arrests me. It turns out I haven’t had a drink at all. So, I get a “sorry” from the officer.

I think an officer should have at least observed some violation before he stops me. Might as well alllow totally random stops..

It’s rather silly to discount the idea that anyone ought to concern themselves with policing the police. Given the number of police abuses that occur every day, it’s ridiculous not to consider such precautions.
”

how do you determine this in a matter of seconds?

again, it’s the “but the cops” argument again

“given the number of police abuses”…

what exactly is the huge motivation for a cop to risk his entire career by calling in a false complaint of a dui vehicle, that the patrol guys may never even FIND in the first place, just to get a guy pulled over?

for pete’s sake.

like i said, if a cop was that frigging dishonest, he could just pull any car over and make up the claim that they were weaving.

but the issue is this. is a citizen complaint enough to MERELY stop a car. a brief investigative detention.

It seems to me that would involve determining whether the “citizen complaint” actually came from a citizen.

It’s rather silly to discount the idea that anyone ought to concern themselves with policing the police. Given the number of police abuses that occur every day, it’s ridiculous not to consider such precautions.

wow. right after i called somebody out on the “but the cops could lie” argument that we see in nearly every search and seizure and miranda discussion, another one comes in.

yes, a cop COULD simply call in the tip himself. a cop could also simply pull a car over and CLAIM the car weaved and stuff. the latter is EASIER to fake (no phone call with voice analysis to worry about, traced calls, etc.)

the reality is that witnesses, and that includes cops, domestic violence complainants, storeowner, etc. all CAN lie to the police and many do.

but the issue is this. is a citizen complaint enough to MERELY stop a car. a brief investigative detention.

like i said, i prefer to always try ot get a name and phone #, but many of these calls come from dispatch and many people don’t give their name to dispatch.

that sounds entirely reasonable. i’m all about totality of the circumstances. i’m just sayin’ that based on a fair # of personal experiences, citizen reports of dui’s are darn accurate.

it seems to me to be similar to citizen reports of domestic violence. those reports, if they say they hear somebody yelling for help, or the sounds of a physical argument justify us entering a resident against an occupant’s consent to check the safety of the residents. that’s a much greater intrusion on privacy than stopping a car.

a car isn’t a house, and we aren’t saying the cops should search the car, just STOP it and contact the driver. if he’s sober,it’s a very minor convenience.

i do always try to get the RP’s name and phone #. that only takes a few seconds. if they refuse to give me that, THAT would certainly make me hesitant to make a stop based on their account.

At least in California there is a distinction between in person tips and phone call tips. If the person gives their name and phone number to the 911 operator they are considered “citizen informants” rather than anonymous callers. Or if a person makes a report to a police officer (as in your example of someone flagging you down) they are considered citizen informants. A citizen informant is presumed reliable and a single tip can justify reasonable suspicion. The belief is that people are going to be less likely to make a false report in such a way that they can be found again.

I am not sure if this is the case in other states. With that said, CA also has a case where a single anonymous caller regarding a DUI is sufficient. The case is very similar to the TN case linked to above.

Also, I’m with OK, I think Dunlap was a bit over the top but it got attention which is kind of the point of a dissent from denial of cert.

whit: iow, empirical evidence supports that it is reasonable to suspect the driver is dui.

Is empherical data that, for X circumstances, some threshhold percentage of folks are committing a crime enough to constitute resaonable suspicion? What if I could show, for example, that 90% of asians driving Hondas in LA were carrying drugs? What if I could show that 90% of people in general were carrying contraband?

every time we have one of these types of questions on miranda, seizure, whatever we get the “yea, but if the cop lies” argument.

it gets old.

for pete’s sake, if the cop wanted to lie, he could say the guy was swerving, why would he need the citizen? it’s a silly argument. yes, he could lie. so could the citizen. that’s the world we live in.