Utah v. Strieff

[89Hen]

Frankly,
as a white guy wearing a nice shirt and looking freshly bathed most of the time
I really enjoy police profiling - I find it appropriate and reasonable

[89Hen]

What if I knew you had a warrant out for your arrest and you were at a bar and I called the cops and said you might want to check out the guy in the Hamilton Rox shirt at the bar because he may have a warrant out for his arrest? Is that a tip that's OK to check out?

That's different because the actual suspicion there would be that the guy has a warrant, and he has been described reasonably well by you. What would make it even more ironclad would be if you provided his name or other information that the police could use to determine that was in fact an active warrant before approaching.

Yeah, I guess that's a bad example, but what I was going for was that a cop wouldn't necessarily know one, who that guys is and two, that he had a warrant unless the tip came in. IOW, the cop would have no reason to ask Gannon for his ID otherwise.

Let's try this one, if somebody said they saw you expose yourself to a kid, would a cop be able to detain you and ask for ID?

[CID1990]

That's different because the actual suspicion there would be that the guy has a warrant, and he has been described reasonably well by you. What would make it even more ironclad would be if you provided his name or other information that the police could use to determine that was in fact an active warrant before approaching.

Yeah, I guess that's a bad example, but what I was going for was that a cop wouldn't necessarily know one, who that guys is and two, that he had a warrant unless the tip came in. IOW, the cop would have no reason to ask Gannon for his ID otherwise.

Let's try this one, if somebody said they saw you expose yourself to a kid, would a cop be able to detain you and ask for ID?

Yes, an investigative detention to determine identity would be lawful, because you had been pointed out by a claimed witness to a crime freshly committed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

Yeah, I guess that's a bad example, but what I was going for was that a cop wouldn't necessarily know one, who that guys is and two, that he had a warrant unless the tip came in. IOW, the cop would have no reason to ask Gannon for his ID otherwise.

Let's try this one, if somebody said they saw you expose yourself to a kid, would a cop be able to detain you and ask for ID?

Yes, an investigative detention to determine identity would be lawful, because you had been pointed out by a claimed witness to a crime freshly committed.

So if a person says they saw you buying drugs, that's probably the same, even though you could make a case that somebody was handing you a bag of sugar. So it's not a far stretch to say that if somebody has a pretty good idea that somebody who doesn't live in a house that's pretty well known to be a drug house came visiting...

[GannonFan]

Yes, an investigative detention to determine identity would be lawful, because you had been pointed out by a claimed witness to a crime freshly committed.

So if a person says they saw you buying drugs, that's probably the same, even though you could make a case that somebody was handing you a bag of sugar. So it's not a far stretch to say that if somebody has a pretty good idea that somebody who doesn't live in a house that's pretty well known to be a drug house came visiting...

But where did the tip come from? A single anonymous tip without other corroborating evidence would never get you in the vicinity of a search warrant, and certainly isn't going to be enough reasonable cause to think that a crime has either happened, is happening, or is about to happen. In this case, as far as I read, the cop had an anonymous tip that the house was a site of drug activity. That was it. The guy who came out of the house who he detained didn't exhibit any outward signs of having committed a crime other than coming from that house. The cop didn't know if the guy lived there or not. That's just not enough, IMO, to ask the guy for ID so that you can run a background check on him. Anybody could have made the "anonymous tip" - a legitimately concerned citizen, or it could've been the cop's partner or someone else in law enforcement. It's too flimsy to go on just that.

I'm just not of the opinion that police should be able to ask for your ID whenever they want, or even under anything other than substantial, and multiple reasons to think you've done a crime or are about to.

[89Hen]

So if a person says they saw you buying drugs, that's probably the same, even though you could make a case that somebody was handing you a bag of sugar. So it's not a far stretch to say that if somebody has a pretty good idea that somebody who doesn't live in a house that's pretty well known to be a drug house came visiting...

But where did the tip come from? A single anonymous tip without other corroborating evidence would never get you in the vicinity of a search warrant, and certainly isn't going to be enough reasonable cause to think that a crime has either happened, is happening, or is about to happen. In this case, as far as I read, the cop had an anonymous tip that the house was a site of drug activity. That was it. The guy who came out of the house who he detained didn't exhibit any outward signs of having committed a crime other than coming from that house. The cop didn't know if the guy lived there or not. That's just not enough, IMO, to ask the guy for ID so that you can run a background check on him. Anybody could have made the "anonymous tip" - a legitimately concerned citizen, or it could've been the cop's partner or someone else in law enforcement. It's too flimsy to go on just that.

I'm just not of the opinion that police should be able to ask for your ID whenever they want, or even under anything other than substantial, and multiple reasons to think you've done a crime or are about to.

Is it the anonymous part? Should a cop have to investigate further if I told him I saw you pull out your dick and waive it at a kid?

[kalm]

So if a person says they saw you buying drugs, that's probably the same, even though you could make a case that somebody was handing you a bag of sugar. So it's not a far stretch to say that if somebody has a pretty good idea that somebody who doesn't live in a house that's pretty well known to be a drug house came visiting...

But where did the tip come from? A single anonymous tip without other corroborating evidence would never get you in the vicinity of a search warrant, and certainly isn't going to be enough reasonable cause to think that a crime has either happened, is happening, or is about to happen. In this case, as far as I read, the cop had an anonymous tip that the house was a site of drug activity. That was it. The guy who came out of the house who he detained didn't exhibit any outward signs of having committed a crime other than coming from that house. The cop didn't know if the guy lived there or not. That's just not enough, IMO, to ask the guy for ID so that you can run a background check on him. Anybody could have made the "anonymous tip" - a legitimately concerned citizen, or it could've been the cop's partner or someone else in law enforcement. It's too flimsy to go on just that.

I'm just not of the opinion that police should be able to ask for your ID whenever they want, or even under anything other than substantial, and multiple reasons to think you've done a crime or are about to.

This.

(I hope that's less cryptic and nuanced than "complete and utter bullshit")

[CID1990]

But where did the tip come from? A single anonymous tip without other corroborating evidence would never get you in the vicinity of a search warrant, and certainly isn't going to be enough reasonable cause to think that a crime has either happened, is happening, or is about to happen. In this case, as far as I read, the cop had an anonymous tip that the house was a site of drug activity. That was it. The guy who came out of the house who he detained didn't exhibit any outward signs of having committed a crime other than coming from that house. The cop didn't know if the guy lived there or not. That's just not enough, IMO, to ask the guy for ID so that you can run a background check on him. Anybody could have made the "anonymous tip" - a legitimately concerned citizen, or it could've been the cop's partner or someone else in law enforcement. It's too flimsy to go on just that.

I'm just not of the opinion that police should be able to ask for your ID whenever they want, or even under anything other than substantial, and multiple reasons to think you've done a crime or are about to.

Is it the anonymous part? Should a cop have to investigate further if I told him I saw you pull out your dick and waive it at a kid?

With an anonymous tip you have to have more corroboration- but that being said, in a case where you have a victim alleging a crime and a witness pointing the bad guy out to you that's about as good as it gets for at least an investigative stop. There is a LOT of case law backing up that scenario.

Again, I think SCOTUS muddied the water with the approach they took to this case.

Maybe they are feeling a bit lost without Scalia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

Is it the anonymous part? Should a cop have to investigate further if I told him I saw you pull out your dick and waive it at a kid?

With an anonymous tip you have to have more corroboration- but that being said, in a case where you have a victim alleging a crime and a witness pointing the bad guy out to you that's about as good as it gets for at least an investigative stop. There is a LOT of case law backing up that scenario.

That wasn't the scenario I gave you.

[CID1990]

With an anonymous tip you have to have more corroboration- but that being said, in a case where you have a victim alleging a crime and a witness pointing the bad guy out to you that's about as good as it gets for at least an investigative stop. There is a LOT of case law backing up that scenario.

That wasn't the scenario I gave you.

the scenario you gave me didnt mention that it was obvious that a crime was committed

in that instance, the officer would need to establish whether or not that it was probable that a crime had actually been committed- so if you point out a guy and say he waved his junk at a kid, there's going to need to be a victim willing to corroborate that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

But where did the tip come from? A single anonymous tip without other corroborating evidence would never get you in the vicinity of a search warrant, and certainly isn't going to be enough reasonable cause to think that a crime has either happened, is happening, or is about to happen. In this case, as far as I read, the cop had an anonymous tip that the house was a site of drug activity. That was it. The guy who came out of the house who he detained didn't exhibit any outward signs of having committed a crime other than coming from that house. The cop didn't know if the guy lived there or not. That's just not enough, IMO, to ask the guy for ID so that you can run a background check on him. Anybody could have made the "anonymous tip" - a legitimately concerned citizen, or it could've been the cop's partner or someone else in law enforcement. It's too flimsy to go on just that.

I'm just not of the opinion that police should be able to ask for your ID whenever they want, or even under anything other than substantial, and multiple reasons to think you've done a crime or are about to.

Is it the anonymous part? Should a cop have to investigate further if I told him I saw you pull out your dick and waive it at a kid?

Yeah, that's different. An anonymous tip, like say a quick, untraceable phone call, is significantly different than an actual living/breathing witness/victim who points to someone and says "that's the guy who did it". You can then question the witness/victim who is making the accusation and the accused. You can't question the anonymous tip.

[89Hen]

Is it the anonymous part? Should a cop have to investigate further if I told him I saw you pull out your dick and waive it at a kid?

Yeah, that's different. An anonymous tip, like say a quick, untraceable phone call, is significantly different than an actual living/breathing witness/victim who points to someone and says "that's the guy who did it". You can then question the witness/victim who is making the accusation and the accused. You can't question the anonymous tip.

So a bomb threat from an anonymous tip shouldn't have any action taken.

[89Hen]

That wasn't the scenario I gave you.

the scenario you gave me didnt mention that it was obvious that a crime was committed

in that instance, the officer would need to establish whether or not that it was probable that a crime had actually been committed- so if you point out a guy and say he waved his junk at a kid, there's going to need to be a victim willing to corroborate that

That would be up to the cop to decide? Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Chizzang]

In practice:
You've now got a guy in custody who has an outstanding warrant for arrest
is the warrant now void ..? Do you say "Oops" and let him go and then attempt to acquire him later

WTF is the "value" of the discussion in the practical application in the field

You illegally captured the criminal
the previous warrant is now void..?

[GannonFan]

Yeah, that's different. An anonymous tip, like say a quick, untraceable phone call, is significantly different than an actual living/breathing witness/victim who points to someone and says "that's the guy who did it". You can then question the witness/victim who is making the accusation and the accused. You can't question the anonymous tip.

So a bomb threat from an anonymous tip shouldn't have any action taken.

There are exceptions for immediate danger. Cops are allowed to frisk someone during a stop (not an arrest) if they feel there is the potential for weapons and they could be in danger. A guy walking away from a house where there might be drugs does not cross the threshold of immediate danger.

[Ivytalk]

Interesting National Review piece on Strieff. The guy said Sotomayor, like a broken clock, somehow managed to be right In this case. But she went overboard with her rhetoric and threw a lot of BLM -type verbiage into her dissent, when a simple Fourth Amendment analysis would have done the trick. Wise Latina, my arse.

[89Hen]

So a bomb threat from an anonymous tip shouldn't have any action taken.

There are exceptions for immediate danger. Cops are allowed to frisk someone during a stop (not an arrest) if they feel there is the potential for weapons and they could be in danger. A guy walking away from a house where there might be drugs does not cross the threshold of immediate danger.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this one. There is no immediate danger for a LOT of things that warrant further exploration by cops.

[GannonFan]

Interesting National Review piece on Strieff. The guy said Sotomayor, like a broken clock, somehow managed to be right In this case. But she went overboard with her rhetoric and threw a lot of BLM -type verbiage into her dissent, when a simple Fourth Amendment analysis would have done the trick. Wise Latina, my arse.

I agree - she added tons of things in there that had zero relevance. But I agree with the dissent.

[CID1990]

In practice:
You've now got a guy in custody who has an outstanding warrant for arrest
is the warrant now void ..? Do you say "Oops" and let him go and then attempt to acquire him later

WTF is the "value" of the discussion in the practical application in the field

You illegally captured the criminal
the previous warrant is now void..?

you have articulated the issue better than I could- and why it is frankly disappointing SCOTUS took this case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DSUrocks07]

Yeah, that's different. An anonymous tip, like say a quick, untraceable phone call, is significantly different than an actual living/breathing witness/victim who points to someone and says "that's the guy who did it". You can then question the witness/victim who is making the accusation and the accused. You can't question the anonymous tip.

So a bomb threat from an anonymous tip shouldn't have any action taken.

A bomb threat normally involves a location. Locations don't have fourth amendment rights. So an anonymous tip of a bomb threat would involve staking out and search the location of where the threat was made.

A random tip that a PERSON had a bomb to use is more nuanced. You would still stake out the location of the bomb threat itself and wait for the person to arrive, that would be corroborating evidence to be able to search. But if a random person called the FBI and said, "89 is going to blow up (insert location) at this time", that alone wouldn't (or shouldn't) be enough to get a search warrant for your home, or throw you in Guantanamo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk