No frisking on anonymous tips

Great Debates
1

The Supreme Court yesterday handed down a unanimous verdict saying cops couldn’t stop people and frisk them based solely on anonymous tips. They said that while they understand the danger of guns, allowing this would essentially allow anybody to call in a tip against whoever they don’t like, setting in motion a chain of events to disrupt their life.

Hooray for the court! Unanimous, even.

However, as the article linked to below notes:

“But Robert Scully, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, called the ruling ‘very baffling,’”

Very baffling? The concept of simple civil liberties – like being able to walk around without being searched for essentially no reason by police is baffling to this guy? That scares me…
http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0003290065,FF.html

2

What!?
There’s a problem with one cop calling another and saying,“This is an annonymous tip-Joe Blow has drugs and guns in his car(house, place of business etc.)”??

Go figure. :wink:

Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.

3

David, the court essentially upheld a ten-year-old decision saying the same thing. In other words, it has been the law of the land for ten years that searches could not be predicated solely on an anonymous tip.

An extensive analysis of the Florida v. J.L. decision you’re discussing appears on page 3 of the “Stop Suppressing Evidence” thread, here. See my post at 03-28-2000 03:36 PM.

  • Rick
4

David,

Well, hoo-rah, too. News flash! I, and most of my colleagues, don’t frisk or do most anything on an anonymous tip, except observe. If I have a gut instinct on a subject(s) or situation, believe me, I have enough legal ways to initiate a search. I’ve been in the business long enough to know that patience is a cop’s best weapon. If you wait long enough and know what to look for, the dirtbags will give you enough rope to hang. It’s like fishing, you have to know where to look and set your line.

Terry v. Ohio is a very useful tool for us. In the Chicago Tribune article you referred to, the 3 b/m by the pawnshop could’ve been Terry Stopped depending on the time of day and situation involved, as witnessed by the responding or observing officer. Perfectly acceptable. Three AM, hanging out in front of pawn shop with no viable explanation. Whooo hoooo!! Come to Papa!! Oh, by the way since there’s three of you guys and only one of me (with the implied hint that my backup is waiting)— hey, you don’t mind me searching you for my safety do you? Nawww, didn’t think you would.

Contrary to what the article might imply, I really don’t give a rat’s ass what race they are. Three white males in Brooks Brothers suits in that situation would also get my interest. A little rule I live by-- Absence of the Usual, Presence of the Unusual. Works a lot of the time.

I treat annonymous tips as a possibility that something may happen. No cop worth his salt would ever use it as a basis for a search or arrest. That shit only happens in the movies or TV.

…send lawyers, guns, and money…

       Warren Zevon
5

Bluepony,

This is true - but only because the dirtbags don’t know legal procedure.

Contrary to what you suggest, the three black males in the J.L. case were waiting at a bus stop, which the had a lawful right to do. The mere fact that there are three of them and one of you does not, without more, give rise to the “reasonable, articulable suspicion” necessary to give rise to a Terry stop.

Of course, you could always approach them an initiate a consensual encounter. If their actions or words during that consensual encounter gave rise to reasonable suspicison of wrongdoing, you could then escalate to a Terry detention.

But if the men (or boys) in question knew their rights, they could simply tell you, “I’m sorry, but I don’t wish to speak to you; I’m going to disregard your questions and go about my business.” This, of course, they are permitted to do in a consensual encounter.

You’re quite right - they will always give you enough rope to hang themselves. The defense lawyer’s nightmare comes fromt hese guys that consent to searches and won’t stop talking. I believe I could have won every case I ever tried, almost, if my clients had simply shut up.

  • Rick
6

You gotta love it when a court as divided as this one is goes 9-0 against ya. Talk about barking up the wrong tree!! (laughing)

7

True, DS. They mainly shut down the DC Circuit and the Second Circuit, who had a number of cases suggesting a firearms exception to Terry – that is, an anonymous tip, standing alone, was enough to justify a Terry stop if the tip involved the carrying of a firearm.

Divided or not on other issues, they didn’t budge on that!

  • Rick
8

Okay. What’s a Terry stop?

I get the impression its something like a, “Howdy, what’s up?” kind of thing.

What are the rules for a Terry stop?

9

PS- I did read the part in the other thread about “reasonable and articulable.” Seems kinda vague.

10

A Terry stop, so named from the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is the shorthand description for a temporary investigative detention by police. This is a middle ground between a consensual encounter and a full-blown arrest.

If an officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime, he may briefly detain and investigate further Although there is no hard and fast rule, this detention may not generally last long.

During this detention, if an officer erasonably believes his safety is in danger, he may perform a “frisk” - a brief pat-down of the suspect’s outer clothing to ensure the suspect is not armed. In balancing the minimal intrusion of such a search (reaching into pockets, for example, is not permitted) against the need for officer safety, the Court concluded that the balance weighed iin favor of permitting the brief search.

Of course, if, during the frisk, the officer discovers probable cause evidence of a crime, he may proceed to further investigate, search, or arrest the suspect.

What is “reasonable, articulable suspicion?” It is a particularized, definable condition, somethign the officer can quantify and explain. It is more than a mere hunch, or an inchoate sense.

For example, in Reid v. Georgia, the Court rejected a DEA agent’s accosting a man who walked through an airport past the baggage claim area, occasionally looking backward in the direction of another man. The agent testified that such tactics were common when smuggling drugs.

In Florida v. Royer, they upheld the detention of a man who purchased airline tickets under a false name (at the time, such an action was legal). The Court said that travelling under an assumed name gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing.

And in Smith v. Ohio, the Court rejected a detention predicated on a young man carrying a brown paper sack “gingerly”.

Hope that helps.

  • Rick
11

Bluepony said:

Hmmmm. Then perhaps you could explain why the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, called the ruling “very baffling”?