Source: The SCOTUS Blog
The Supreme Court decided to review the case Navarette v. California, a case involving Fourth Amendment rights regarding whether searches and seizures based on an anonymous phone tip are "unreasonable" or not. It would be a very good idea to read the linked source above first to get the full background on the case before proceeding.
As the blog post describes, the brief submitted by the Navarettes' lawyers argues that this case falls within the precedent set by a previous case, Florida v. J.L., in which the Court ruled that an anonymous tip without corroboration was not sufficient to warrant the stopping and searching of a person on the street on the suspicion that he/she was carrying a gun. However, as the lawyers representing California contend, there is a difference between a person walking on the street and one engaging in reckless driving because the latter poses a more immediate and direct threat to other citizens than the former. Because of this and the fact that the person giving the tip is an eyewitness, it would not be "unreasonable" for police to stop someone for reckless driving without corroborating the tip or having seen that person commit a traffic violation themselves. Thus, the Court may rule that the case doesn't fall within the previous precedent set by Florida v. J.L.
One particularly interesting tidbit I noticed in this post came at the very end. The post describes that the brothers have picked up the support of two defense associations, while California has received the support of 32 other states and D.C. as amici. With such a lopsided difference in the amici for each side, it seems to me that California is all but guaranteed to win the review, considering the number of amici alone. It also appears that the Court may want to uphold the lower court's ruling simply to set a precedent that will resolve disagreement among lower courts regarding this issue.
2 comments:
I’m sure many of us have seen the large signs on our local freeways: “Report drunk drivers—call 911.” Prior to reading the details of this case, I would have never considered that it may be unconstitutional for a highway patrol or police officer to use a phone tip—anonymous or not—to pull a driver over and potentially prevent a fatal accident.
Yet, the Naverette brothers, with the support of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders, point to Florida v. J.L. I understand the precedent set forth in Florida v. J.L.—an anonymous tip is an extremely small piece of evidence in relation to a police officer’s right to stop a person on the street and search him. However, I disagree with their statement that there is no distinction between a person carrying a gun and a reckless driver.
I support the brief supplied by California, which argues the importance of public safety in this case. With 13,000 people dying in the United States each year at the hands of intoxicated drivers, ruling in favor of the Naverette brothers would be irresponsible and likely catastrophic. In response to Patrick’s question, I think that the interest in public safety and the amicus briefs filed by the states will play a very influential role in the ruling of this case. For the Court to rule in favor of the Naverette brothers would be widely unpopular among those involved with enforcing these laws.
I agree with Annika. Given the context of the threat drunk drivers can have over innocent bystanders, my sympathies side with the rights of the possible victims to feeling safe on the road and other public places as opposed to the drivers who think that they have the right to endanger others, but privately. But this is my own opinion, and I think the Court could go either way on this case. Historically speaking, the Supreme Court tends allow more generous albeit questionable rulings towards civil freedoms out of fear of restricting and oppressing citizens, and Navarette v. California may prove to be another one of these incidents. On the other hand, Patrick raises a good point in that the Court might just want to set a precedent to settle discrepancies between lower court orders.
Post a Comment