Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: SCOTUS & Navarette v. California: Applications to Gun control?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    SCOTUS & Navarette v. California: Applications to Gun control?

    This seems potentially serious. From Orin Kerr:

    A First Look at Navarette v. California: Are Stops Governed by the Rules of Terry or By Case-by-Case Reasonableness?
    On January 21st, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Navarette v. California, a Fourth Amendment case on whether an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding drunk driving must corroborate the dangerous driving before stopping the car.

    ...

    The California brief takes a different approach. Instead of just asking when “reasonable suspicion” exists, California asks the Court engage in interest balancing on a case-by-case basis. In California’s view, the reasonableness of a stop isn’t based on whether Terry‘s reasonable suspicion standard has been satisfied in the abstract. Instead, California sees Terry as merely one application of reasonableness balancing, and it asks the Court to engage in interest balancing afresh by considering the nature of the crime to be investigated when assessing whether the stop was reasonable. The basic idea is that drunk driving is so serious a problem that stopping a car for suspected drunk driving requires less cause than would a stop for a less serious offense. The more serious the crime, the less suspicion is needed.
    It would be very easy for gun-hating courts and states to assert 'gun violence' is so serious that less suspicion is needed. That mentality would threaten all who carry. Anonymous tipsters often lie, or are simply wrong. MWAG tips, without clear Fourth Amendment protections, could be quite dangerous.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...-v-california/

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

    "Sounds like Anita Hill's charges against Justice Thomas have become mainstream jurisprudence. As I recall, "It is not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charges that matter."

    Yes, the perceived seriousness varies. Here, our major, nearly only, crime is underage drinking and attendant drunk driving. Narrow roads bounded by ditches and trees, few people, fewer cars and lots of scrubby trees make safe roads."
    .
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-02-2014 at 01:41 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    More legal mumbo jumbo trying to strip us of our rights.

    An ill-informed tipster does not created RAS or PC.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I wouldn't worry about the opposing argument. The Court will have to do an about-face to buy off on that argument. If they do that (I don't expect they will), that is what you should worry about.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    <snip> It would be very easy for gun-hating courts and states to assert 'gun violence' is so serious that less suspicion is needed. That mentality would threaten all who carry. Anonymous tipsters often lie, or are simply wrong. MWAG tips, without clear Fourth Amendment protections, could be quite dangerous.
    In some cases, and jurisdictions they are quite dangerous. It is very dangerous because cops always give the benefit of the doubt to the "anonymous" MWAG caller.

    Cops: "We got a call and need to make sure you ain't a felon or that your gun ain't stolen." "You understand, we are just doing our job." "Hey, Jack, I fully support the 2A, I'm a member of the NRA." "Nothing personal, we just gotta be sure, for the children, ya can't be too careful now, can you?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Hi Folks

    Read this Supreme Court decision regarding anonymous tips..

    FLORIDA V J.L.
    529,U.S. 266, 129. S.CT.1375, 146 L.Ed 254 (2000)

    Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court..

    " The question presented in this case is whether an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person..
    WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT...

    Best regards.

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    To extrapolate to probable future rulings: An anonymous tip is not enough alone to develop RAS. The officer, himself, needs to add a fact or facts, by his observation, in addition to the tip to develop RAS.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •