 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Boyea12/1/2000
able that the vehicle or its occupants were innocent of any wrongdoing, police must be permitted to act before their reasonable belief is verified by escape or fruition of the harm it was their duty to prevent.'" 2 W. R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 3.8, at 242 (2nd ed. 1999) (quoting United States v. Holland, 510 F.2d 453, 455 (9th Cir. 1975)) (emphasis in original).
I am compelled to make one additional comment on this case. When an informant place an anonymous telephone call to the police, "the informant has not placed his credibility at risk and can lie with impunity." J.L., 120 S. Ct. at 1381 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy went on to observe, however, that there may be "many indicia of reliability respecting anonymous tips" that the cases had not explored. Id. at 1380-81. In J.L., however, the record in this regard was barren; it did not show whether some notation or other documentation of the call was made either by a voice recording or tracing the call to a telephone number.
The record in this case does not reveal much more. We know the information came to the arresting officer by way of a radio dispatch from the Vermont State Police Dispatcher requesting that officers be on the lookout for a particularly described vehicle being operated erratically on I -89. Nevertheless, with the advent of instant caller-identification, widely available and in use by the public and the police, there is increasing awareness of the lack of true anonymity in today's telecommunication world. I am equally certain that the general public is well aware of the fact that it is a crime to make a false report to police. See 13 V.S.A. §1754.
The possibility that a citizen may provide an erroneous anonymous tip out of spite or general evil intentions should not restrain law enforcement officers from responding when it is reasonable to do so. It is the oppressive and unwarranted actions of government that the Fourth Amendment protects against. The Constitution is not violated when we allow the police to assume good faith on the part of the citizens of our state, just long enough to effectuate a brief, limited roadside stop to determine if the tip came from a prankster or a concerned fellow traveler. For these reasons, I concur in the Court's reasoning and decision to affirm the judgment. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Amestoy joins in this concurring opinion.
Dissenting
JOHNSON, J., dissenting.
Constitutional rights are not based on speculations. Whatever frightening scenarios may be imagined by police officers or appellate judges, the Framers of our Constitution struck a balance between individual privacy and the intrusive power of government, a balance that we have a duty to protect. The Fourth Amendment is the source of protection against searches and seizures that are based on unreliable information. When an anonymous tip provides the sole basis for the seizure, the need for reliability is heightened. Today's decision allows the police to dispense with this constitutional requirement and turn over to the public the power to cause the search or seizure of a person driving a car.
In this case, Officer Billings was told to be on the lookout for a particular car because the driver was allegedly "operating erratically." On the basis of that instruction, nothing else, he stopped Ms. Boyea. He corroborated only the generally-available information about the exterior of the car described by the tip. During the time he had her in sight while she exited the highway, he saw nothing to arouse suspicion. The majority claims that the "totality of the factual circumstances in this case satisfied the requirements of reliability.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|