# Today the Fourth Amendment is One Step Closer to the Grave **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744 "2014-04-23T04:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/1 "2014-04-23T04:50:56Z")
SCOTUS ruled today in [Navarette v. California (pdf)](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf). They ruled 5-4 that an anonymous tip on a specific vehicle at a specific location is enough to justify a traffic stop even if the officers involved observe nothing that would otherwise allow the traffic stop. Once the stop is conducted, all other rules apply. From the opinion: > [@](#): > > The court reasoned that the content of the tip indicated that it > came from an eyewitness victim of reckless driving, and > that the officer’s corroboration of the truck’s description, > location, and direction established that the tip was reliable > enough to justify a traffic stop. Id., at \*7. Finally, the > court concluded that the caller reported driving that was > sufficiently dangerous to merit an investigative stop with > out waiting for the officer to observe additional reckless > driving himself. Id., at \*9. The California Supreme Court denied review. We granted certiorari, 570 U. S. \_\_\_ > (2013), and now affirm. So now it becomes that much easier to fabricate justification to stop a person on the road. I suppose the argument could be made that if police wanted to fabricate a reason for a traffic stop they could do that already, but why increase their avenues for bad behavior? With advances in surveillance and vehicle monitoring, it is reasonable that in the future any behavior that is used to support the traffic stop be required to be presented. Now with anonymous tips being sufficient, there may be no way to contest the basis for the stop. Thomas wrote the opinion of the majority which I find completely unpersuasive. From the dissent by Scalia: > [@](#): > > The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying > cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that > anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so > long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and > (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving > necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunken > ness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a > traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, > forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out > not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the > caller need fear no consequences, even if 911 knows his > identity. After all, he never alleged drunkenness, but > merely called in a traffic violation—and on that point his > word is as good as his victim’s. Was this wrongly decided? I think it was. How can it be overturned? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/2 "2014-04-23T05:40:39Z")
I’ve grown so accustomed to disagreeing with Scalia that finding him on my side makes me very uncomfortable. What must I be overlooking? Scalia seems to imply that the caller should bear responsibility for a false complaint. But this seems dangerous. I would think that the driver who was stopped would have to prove improper intent. i.e., if I see your car weaving and swerving, and call it in, and you turn out to be sober as a judge 😉 then have I actually done anything wrong? Scalia seems to want me to be held responsible, and I don’t think I agree. Anonymous tips, of any sort, will always be troubling. They can be misused. But they can also save lives, free hostages, expose wrongdoing, and capture fugitives. I honestly don’t know what the right answer is here. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/3 "2014-04-23T09:36:13Z")
A car on a public road isn’t a private place subject to Fourth Amendment protections in the first place. I fail to see the problem with this ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/4 "2014-04-23T11:41:44Z")
How does this case change the Alabama v White framework? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/5 "2014-04-23T11:53:00Z")
And as an aside: Scalia gets a lot of crap on this board for his supposed blind commitment to a conservative outcome – presumably as opposed to the liberal wing of the court, who presumably are NOT committed to a liberal outcome. But this is not remotely the first time Scalia has joined the liberal justices. This shows that what Scalia is committed to is the principle of analysis he favors, and he follows that where it takes him. I can’t really think of too many examples where Sotomayor or Ginsberg are joining the conservative wing when the Court is split. Every time this happens, people comment on it…but it never seems to make a lasting impression. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/6 "2014-04-23T12:29:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And as an aside: Scalia gets a lot of crap on this board for his supposed blind commitment to a conservative outcome – presumably as opposed to the liberal wing of the court, who presumably are NOT committed to a liberal outcome. > > But this is not remotely the first time Scalia has joined the liberal justices. This shows that what Scalia is committed to is the principle of analysis he favors, and he follows that where it takes him. > > I can’t really think of too many examples where Sotomayor or Ginsberg are joining the conservative wing when the Court is split. > > Every time this happens, people comment on it…but it never seems to make a lasting impression. I know. It’s like there’s a reset afterwards, and folks start all over again. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Scalia! Not to mention the fact that most cases never get any press coverage and often involve super-majority or unanimous rulings by the justices. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/7 "2014-04-23T12:37:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And as an aside: Scalia gets a lot of crap on this board for his supposed blind commitment to a conservative outcome – presumably as opposed to the liberal wing of the court, who presumably are NOT committed to a liberal outcome. How does Scalia’s opinion here counter the interests of the corporate overlords of the GOP? And who are these liberals you claim to see on the court? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/8 "2014-04-23T13:11:26Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > How does Scalia’s opinion here counter the interests of the corporate overlords of the GOP? > > And who are these liberals you claim to see on the court? Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsberg fit that description. And the traditional conservative stereotype is that the police interests would be weighed over the interests of the accused. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/9 "2014-04-23T13:21:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does this case change the Alabama v White framework? I’m not sure exactly. In Alabama v. White the police at least independently corroborated some aspects of the anonymous tip. In Navarette there was no verification of any information presented by the anonymous tip except for the type of vehicle and location. I would say that is more general knowledge rather than any specific indicia of illegal activity. The court obviously disagrees. > [@Smapti](#): > > A car on a public road isn’t a private place subject to Fourth Amendment protections in the first place. I fail to see the problem with this ruling. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of fourth amendment jurisprudence. While a car may carry less fourth amendment protection than a residence, there is no basis to conclude that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply. Given that the case under discussion applies the 4th, I’d say you’re spectacularly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/10 "2014-04-23T13:29:13Z")
I can’t weigh in on the legal aspects vis a vis other cases (cuz IANAL), but I’m usually one who sides with 4th Amendment advocates; I usually _don’t_ come down on the side of the police when a big 4th Amendmnet issues come up. That said, this case doesn’t give me much heartburn. If the driver challenges the basis for the stop, the agency can produce call or CAD logs. The office isn’t going to issue a citation based solely on the complaint of a caller, anonymous or no. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/11 "2014-04-23T13:53:34Z")
That’s true, **Sicks Ate** , but it does make it easy for people to use the police to harass others without consequence. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/12 "2014-04-23T13:58:00Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > That’s true, **Sicks Ate** , but it does make it easy for people to use the police to harass others without consequence. Well, that happens all the time anyway. Had the ruling gone the other way, all the officer would have to do is use one of the toolbox of pretenses to stop the vehicle. All this is saying (if I understand it correctly) is that the officer can stop the car bases _solely_ on the complaint call. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/13 "2014-04-23T14:37:45Z")
Implied Consent … In some jurisdictions, just operating a motor vehicle on a public road implies you’ve waved your 4th Amendment rights. The police can search you and your vehicle any time they want to, without probable cause or a search warrant. It’s just something you have to agree with or not drive The public got sick of the carnage and blood-soaked highways back when drunk driving was a simple traffic infraction. I think police misconduct is a weak argument … maybe there’s too many police officers if they have time to misbehave. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/14 "2014-04-23T14:42:30Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Implied Consent … > > In some jurisdictions, just operating a motor vehicle on a public road implies you’ve waved your 4th Amendment rights. The police can search you and your vehicle any time they want to, without probable cause or a search warrant. I would like an example or cite for this, please. There are certainly cases where your vehicle can be searched without a warrant such as a seach incident to arrest; even those searches have been pretty severely limited. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/15 "2014-04-23T14:50:25Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > I would like an example or cite for this, please. There are certainly cases where your vehicle can be searched without a warrant such as a seach incident to arrest; even those searches have been pretty severely limited. [DUI Checkpoints](http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html) is one example. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/16 "2014-04-23T14:52:08Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Implied Consent … > > In some jurisdictions, just operating a motor vehicle on a public road implies you’ve waved your 4th Amendment rights. The police can search you and your vehicle any time they want to, without probable cause or a search warrant. It’s just something you have to agree with or not drive The public got sick of the carnage and blood-soaked highways back when drunk driving was a simple traffic infraction. > > I think police misconduct is a weak argument … maybe there’s too many police officers if they have time to misbehave. No, this is not so. The search of your car requirements your consent, probable cause, a search warrant, or an exception such as exigent circumstances. What jurisdiction are you thinking of? ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/17 "2014-04-23T14:52:36Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > [DUI Checkpoints](http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html) is one example. Except for what’s in plain view, unless you’re under arrest or they have other PC, they can’t search your vehicle at a DUI checkpoint. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/18 "2014-04-23T15:01:24Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Except for what’s in plain view, unless you’re under arrest or they have other PC, they can’t search your vehicle at a DUI checkpoint. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons …” ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/19 "2014-04-23T15:10:01Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > “The right of the people to be secure in their persons …” Look, if you want to get in to a discussion about DUI checkpoints that’s one thing. But being at a DUI checkpoint goesn’t give a cop carte blanche to rifle through your vehicle without a good reason. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744/20 "2014-04-23T15:17:42Z")
The discussion is about “anonymous tip” = “good reason”. The Supreme Court ruled that very occasionally, this is true. My point is that maybe we’ve too many police if they have time to “rifle through your vehicle without a good reason”. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-the-fourth-amendment-is-one-step-closer-to-the-grave/686744.md?page=2)