| Navarette v. California | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 21, 2014 Decided April 22, 2014 | |
| Full case name | Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette, Petitioners v. California |
| Docket no. | 12-9490 |
| Citations | 572 U.S. 393 (more) 134 S. Ct. 1683; 188 L. Ed. 2d 680; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 2930; 82 U.S.L.W. 4282; 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 690; 2014 WL 1577513 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, People v. Navarette, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7415 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2012), cert. denied People v. Navarette (Lorenzo Prado), 2013 Cal. LEXIS 141 (Cal., Jan. 3, 2013) |
| Holding | |
| When acting upon information provided by an anonymous tip, police officers need not personally verify the existence of ongoing criminal activity. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips.[1] In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a "scathing" dissenting opinion, in which he argued that the tip was unreliable, and that the majority's opinion threatened the freedom and liberty of all citizens.[2] Likewise, many commentators have noted Navarette represented a departure from earlier precedent, and that the opinion opened the door for expansive new police powers.[3] Some commentators have also noted that the case leaves open several important questions, including the unanswered question of whether anonymous reports of extremely dangerous behavior require fewer indicia of reliability before police may act upon those reports.[4] Other scholars have argued it was highly unlikely that Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were actually driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they were stopped by police.[5]
- ^ Prado Navarette v. California, No. 12–9490, 572 U.S. ___, slip. op. at 8-11 (2014).
- ^ Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court Gives Police New Power To Rely On Anonymous Tips, NPR, April 22, 2014 (characterizing Justice Scalia's dissent as "scathing").
- ^ See, e.g., Christopher D. Sommers, Presumed Drunk Until Proven Sober: The Dangers and Implications of Anonymous Tips Following Navarette v. California, 60 S.D. L. Rev. 327, 352 (2015).
- ^ Andrew B. Kartchner, J.L.'s Time Bomb Still Ticking: How Navarette's Narrow Holding Failed to Address Important Issues Regarding Anonymous Tips, 44 U. Balt. L. Rev. 1, 19–20 (2014).
- ^ Joshua C. Teitelbaum, Probabilistic Reasoning in Navarette v. California, 62 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 158, 167 (2014) (claiming there was likely a 1/100 chance Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were driving while drunk).
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search