NJLawman.com Forum

 

 

 

   

A Message Board, Guestbook, or Poll hosted for your website.
Register Login Calendar New Posts Chat
 
NJLawman.com > Forums > Law > State Vs. Golotta - DWI Stops from anonymous caller
 
Username:  
Password:  
 
   
 


Thread Tools Search This Thread 
Reply
 
Author Comment
 
MB104
***
Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 135

    10/25/09 at 05:58 PM
  Reply with quote#1

Cut & Paste from Muni-Mail  (NJ Law at the bottom of article)

[10/21/09 – 11:17 pm] In a highly unusual move, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has published a dissent expressing his displeasure in the Court’s rejection of the appeal of a Virginia drunk driving case. The case in question, Virginia v. Harris had been decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. The state court opinion held that when police receive an anonymous tip that a drunk driver is operating a motor vehicle, the police officers may not stop the vehicle until they actually witness the driver do something unsafe on the roadway. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia both sought to accept an appeal of this decision from Virginia. However, the appeal will not be heard because an insufficient number of additional Justices agreed to hear the case.

In his dissenting opinion, the Chief Justice decried the state court decision and characterized it as allowing drunk drivers “one free swerve” before they can be legally pulled over by the police. Although not unheard of, a dissent stemming from a rejected appeal is an extremely unusual event in the United States Supreme Court.

In New Jersey, our Supreme Court has previously considered this precise issue and has ruled that an uncorroborated tip to the police about an intoxicated driver can constitute sufficient reasonable suspicion for the police to effect a motor vehicle stop of the questioned vehicle. (State v. Golotta, 178 N.J. 205 (2003)).

oldredneck57
Avatar / Picture

********
Registered: 04/14/05
Posts: 1,412

    10/25/09 at 06:04 PM
  Reply with quote#2

I'm shocked that the NJ court showed that much sense. 

__________________
How long before we are free

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

If you are foolish enough to get rid of your gun rather than the politician who advocates that you do so, you deserve to be his or her slave!
NPappagiorgio
***
Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 149

    10/29/09 at 10:46 AM
  Reply with quote#3

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldredneck57
I'm shocked that the NJ court showed that much sense. 


I am shocked too. I have seen an issue between the complainant calling 911 vs. a 7 digit non-emergency  number. I have seen that a call to 911 will be sufficient enough to stop a vehicle but a call to a non-emergency 7 digit number has not been sufficient.
RJ622
Avatar / Picture

****
Registered: 05/07/07
Posts: 411

    10/31/09 at 11:20 AM
  Reply with quote#4

Another interesting case about a similar yet different situation regarding DWI stops is  'State of NJ v. Amelio (2008)'

The issue in this appeal is whether a telephone call to a police dispatcher by a seventeen-year-old reporting that her father was drunk and driving provided a constitutional basis to stop defendant’s vehicle.

MB104
***
Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 135

    10/31/09 at 01:49 PM
  Reply with quote#5

NJ v. Amelio  was decided in December, 2008 by the State Supreme Court.  It is an interesting case, which is worth reading.

Here is the cut & paste from the summary of that case:

5. In summary, the police had a duty to investigate the report of a domestic disturbance. The daughter’s second call to dispatch describing her father as drunk provided a sufficiently precise description of a commonly understood condition. The details of those reports by a known citizen gave the police reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop and investigate defendant’s conduct. (p. 10)

The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERASOTO, and HOENS join in this opinion.

USAR31B
Avatar / Picture

******
Registered: 04/09/06
Posts: 676

    11/23/09 at 08:26 PM
  Reply with quote#6

pc is easy enough....4-88


__________________
"....and when you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a p*ssy."

-General Franks



"Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you. " - unknown author
Previous Thread | Next Thread
Reply

  Bookmarks  
Digg Diggdel.icio.us del.icio.usStumbleUpon StumbleUponGoogle GoogleTwitter Twitter
Facebook FacebookWindows Live Favorites Windows Live FavoritesTechnorati Tags Technorati Tagsreddit reddit