LETTER TO THE EDITOR: ‘Anonymous’ doesn’t mean unconstitutional

Question of the Day

What has been the biggest debacle on Obama's watch?

View results

As a former law enforcement officer, I always cringe when I hear talk-show pundits commenting on new Supreme Court decisions. It seems a given that they will leave out most of the reasoning of the court and selectively present only the portions and interpretations that support their own views.

Currently, the topic is the recent Supreme Court decision allowing vehicles to be stopped and sometimes searched, based on information received from an anonymous caller (“Court upholds traffic stop based on anonymous tip,” Web, April 22).

The anonymous caller in the case in question reported to the police that a vehicle had almost run him off the road. The caller added that the driver seemed to be under the influence. The officers located the vehicle and apparently observed no erratic driving that would support a belief of driving under the influence.

It is at this point that the talk-show pundits leave the intellectual analysis and move into the agenda analysis. Their position has generally been that with no erratic driving observed, the officers had no right to stop the vehicle. They went on to theorize that some officers would now start calling in anonymous tips to justify a stop-and-search of others.

It’s amazing that these officers honestly reported no indications of driving under the influence. Is there a disconnect here?

In this situation, the officers were to ignore the “They almost ran me off the road” part of the call, not knowing if the complaint was the result of a medical condition, road rage or some other situation requiring police action. To them, the anonymous part was all that mattered. What if the anonymous caller had said, “I saw a man force a woman into his trunk”? Should the officers ignore a call like this just because it was made anonymously?

Anonymous calls usually are reports from citizens who are not completely sure that what they observed was illegal or important, or they just prefer not to get personally involved.

Stopping and searching people or vehicles is a cumulative process. At each step, the officer is adding or subtracting facts and circumstances that ultimately lead to the decision to stop and search or to move on.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the officers could smell marijuana and subsequently found 30 pounds of it in the vehicle. That’s a lot of smell and hard to miss.



blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts