Navarette v. California
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Navarette_v._California an entity of type: Thing
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. 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 person
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Navarette v. California
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette, Petitioners v. California
xsd:integer
48049944
xsd:integer
1004889003
rdf:langString
Scalia
xsd:integer
12
rdf:langString
Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
rdf:langString
Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, People v. Navarette, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7415 , cert. denied People v. Navarette , 2013 Cal. LEXIS 141
xsd:integer
393
xsd:integer
572
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-21
xsd:integer
2014
rdf:langString
Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-22
xsd:integer
2014
rdf:langString
Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette, Petitioners v. California
rdf:langString
When acting upon information provided by an anonymous tip, police officers need not personally verify the existence of ongoing criminal activity.
rdf:langString
Navarette v. California
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
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. 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. Likewise, many commentators have noted Navarette represented a departure from earlier precedent, and that the opinion opened the door for expansive new police powers. 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. 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.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
32567
