argument case twelve ninety four ninety navarette versus california mr kleiman it's a chief justice it may please the court in this case the court should hold that officers acting on anonymous tips must corroborate the tips assertions of illegal reasonable step reasonable suspicion rule in established in terry versus ohio which courts and law enforcement officials have been applying now for more than forty years should be altered so that now it applies as a sliding scale where the level of suspicion varies depending on the nature of the crime and an anonymous tipster claims someone has committed the registry it so if the tip is this cars driving by and and you know throwing bombs out the window ok every you know whenever every five hundred yards the police find the car they have to wait until they see the person actually throw a bomb on the window themself before pulling a move or why you are in terms of the reasonable suspicion and yet there's if if all they have is an anonymous tip and there is no they have no way of corroborating any of the any of the innocent details except that they can identify the car then yes under the you answered yes the cars going there and throwing a bomb out and it goes doesn't count but carrying a bomb does not it were they throwing bombs that they weren't carrying it would not make a difference however in this case in terms of adjusting the reasonable suspicion standard the court should not address that fortifying askew head home i'm sorry could i ask you what you mean by an anonymous tip suppose somebody calls up an online one and gives a name does that make it not an anonymous tip technically it would not be but in the circumstances here i think it should be treated as an anonymous tip because again the name could be false when the tip first comes out if it's corroborated in some way then and well how would you cooperate and send person calls up and gives a name and gives an address so what would be necessary what would the police to do then before they could stop the vehicle other than observing the vehicle deuce do something identification or some other method verify that in fact that is the person so that somewhere down the line that person will be it will be held accountable for a false tip then it can be treated differently what if you have caller id i mean you have one of these anonymous flip phones right you can buy them it's prepaid you call up and say i'm you know john smith i've seen this and they look there's the car and there's a number then they can do it no your honor i would not if the phone but that in fact there is a particular person there if they can identify the location that sort of thing as the as the tip gets more and more like the known informant in the in the adam's case then because the officers can take more solace in the fact that that person is going to be able to hold responsible adams of course with a situation where if there is a known informant who can be arrested immediately if in fact the tip turns out to be false the problem with so many of these cases what the nine one one tapes what nine one one caller is that even if it is that there's not going to be any sort of accountability even if they do manage to identify the person in terms of showing the tip is false were the allegat example was weaving there's no way to prove that well suppose that if we transport the standard that applies outside of the vehicle context to this context what would happen in this situation a person calls up and says this is my is my address and it's there is not blocked by caller id so the nine one one operator can see that that's the name that's the address the person says this guy ran me off the road the police find the vehicle  they they drive behind the vehicle for a while they don't they don't see any they don't see any any violation so then they think well this guy musta lied so then i'm going to prosecute the guy for calling calling that in no you are  because they still they wouldn't be able to prosecute them because the fact that the vehicle is now not weaving doesn't show that they were it was or were not we i mean your argument goes well beyond you're saying this has to do with anonymous tips but it really goes well beyond them on the steps it covers tips where you know exactly who called in and what you're saying is that they they really can never stop with the acquittal matter what kind of a tip they get unless they see the vehicle committing an a false tip again getting more overt toward sources kennedy then at some point the anonymous tip would be longer than to give me an example of situation in which the police can pull somebody over after receiving a tempt without actually seeing the vehicle commit an illegal act i think your honor in a situation where the caller calls and says i am i've been in the cars is driving erratically the caller then says i'm following the car now we're at such and such a location called the vehicle has just done something else that's wrong and they continue to follow up to the point where ok i can now see the  dd that together under the tallahassee circumstances then you will have a situation probably to do it i think it's going to be rare and i think it should be rare because it is so easy that the court has indicated chorus shown skepticism of war none of us  phones it's so easy for somebody who is on the road who has been annoyed by somebody else just plop the cell phone and call in a false tip and so in those have we have any indication that this is a serious problem the false well there's no impure ecole evidence in the record however it was the same concern that led the court in j l to refuse to adopt the foreigner section the concern that making it so easy exception we have a an exception that's being requested that's stuck trying to leave the same as a firearm except that there is no indication in the record that drunk driving on its own in totality presents a more serious  threat to public safety then than firearms do in fact that the money is spent is that true i mean how many people will die from drunk driving versus how many people drive and die from firearms the most recent the most recent statistics show a little more about eleven thousand people die from homicides by firearms and it's usually under ten thousand now that are driving dying by drunk driving and in terms of public safety price me two thirds of the people who die as a result of drunk driving are the drunk drivers themselves so in fact the overall threat to public safety is not as great when you're talking about drunk driving as as with firearms and the court indicated in jail that it was specifically concerned about the serious threat that armed criminals posed to public safety and despite that serious threat they denied the court denied the firearms exception and what you say we have that the standards are loosened in the vehicle context because your expectation of privacy is diminished when you're out on the road driving along in vehicles not have any well against i don't think so even though it's diminished interest as as opposed to for example in the home it's in jail of course a person was on a public sidewalk a person was not in the home and in proust the court talked about the fact that in modern day times people a lot of people will feel more of a sense of security they'll feel more privacy in a vehicle than they would out on the street but in a context in which we've approved sobriety checkpoints why should we in this sobriety checkpoint cases when the court has looked at the intrusion and found that to be at the very rock bottom in terms of intrusion the fact that somebody is along with a number of other people that they have to submit to a brief stop  it is put that out on the lowest on the lowest level and so it's a the court has not approved any situation where individual vehicles as in this case are are pulled over without reasonable suspicion that  activation of the emergency lodge of a siren you're pulled over possibly in a neighborhood where you're known and people see it possibly out in the middle of the road in the middle of the night as in the wells case and in either sort of that it is information but it will if it was innocent somebody driving a car and going to a particular place now you're asking us to import that whole sale why don't we just stick to our general standard which is the totality of the circumstances and look at what failure there is in the logic of the california court below it it looked at the quality of the information regarding the vehicle which is a legitimate tips or will tell you what the vehicle looks like and its license plate was an often for mission so that can be identified it looks that the caller actually witnessing the event and giving you enough detail to know that it's not exactly what the court was looking at in florida jr versus jr well that's just not true in florida cheo because the individual didn't match the description completely and there were two or three individuals the not just one and so and there was no predictive or no whether detail other than someone in this general area well there was no predictive detail but in j l the yes it was illegal but it was illegal it was because he turned out to be under twenty one but but but the but the tip in and of itself did not indicate that a crime was being committed which is different from this case i'll agree that the tipster didn't say it but i think there's no i'm talking about and interpretation and what the tip said but unless unless the implication is that the gun possession is illegal and there's no reason for the officer stop you might have grounds for a terry stop but if they if the tip calls that the tip says i'm looking at a case of gun possession that as far as i know is perfectly legal it's like in this case if the  j l those elements were confirmed and the but the court found that the fact that those elements which could be observable by anybody who was looking at the situation probably even more clearly reason to believe the person person well but didn't say that i've done was pulled on him or that you know how he saw or how can you write there was no indication as to how the person knew about the gun  don't think there's something significant about calling up and saying someone force me off of a well there is something significant or honor but by itself that just gives the officers some reason to go  if there's no way for the officer to corroborate the allegation you know you see somebody on the street grab a young child throw her in the trunk of the car and then take off and somebody calls with an anonymous tip saying this fellow you know in the this car has got a child in the trunk the police can follow the person you know for free for hours and they're not going to see any corroborating evidence pull that car over at it if that's all they have to go on then under florida versus jail they were not if they just because your answer in that case is that the police cannot pull that car over if in terms of obviously it's a more serious hard for that police car to maintain surveillance and you say they just not to let him go or out i think if you're talking in terms of just the seriousness and you're looking in terms of the florida versus jail except court seemed to be indicating that case that there would be a danger that was so extreme where the court would find a search or a stop justified without any showing of really well just in terms of your position do you think they could pull the car over now you know i don't think it would change consistency i thought i thought you said you you acknowledged or or didn't repudiate the statement in our opinion in jail that if there was a bomb in the car that it be something else what if there 's in the car you know the tip is this person has an atomic bomb given him by al qaeda he is driving it into the center of los angeles to eradicate the entire city ok let it go i believe the choke tells you the license number where the car is you can stop the car i believe consistent with what the court said for the j l that may be a situation again where the court decides that should not change that the court seemed to be indicating in florida versus j l that at some point the level of danger would become so great that in fact there was so with the atomic bomb the level of danger is great enough but the young girl in the trunk the danger level danger cases let me start off by saying if i could that i don't think the court needs to reach that question in this case justice it did not need to read that question i understand it but we're going trysted in the hypothetical right your honor i believe that then again i don't know what to kill or doctor in the court would choose but i think that probably the court could find some some doctrine that would allow it in that circumstance to find it but it shouldn't be it shouldn't be moving toward the sliding scale element of criminal behavior unless the person is actually driving erratically if the person is driving a radically when the officers appear and there's no fourth amendment issue and it's clear that they have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to pull over the vehicle y you know what you give away those which are just arguing about details but where where you draw the line and your eyes does drunken driving fall on one side or the other of of the law and some of this may think drug and driving use is pretty serious and probably you know as serious as having a kidnapped girl in the trunk and your honor i didn't mean to concede that the court should should reduce the level of suspicion for most suspicion in order to do that more than that i want you insist consistency depends on this answer but i'm saying your honour's is the state is arguing for a sliding scale that changes things the court postulated in florida vs jail a situation that was so extreme that was so unique that the court might fifty pickup truck had run someone off the road that's right maybe you do have to be new especially where the person is drunk or not but you don't have to have some special conceit knowledge of anything concealed to know if somebody has run somebody off the honor the idea of running off the road is concealed even if one person weren't drunk i think it's illegal to run someone else off the road i'm not disagreeing with you i don't know what i'm saying is that unless the person is still driving erratically by the time that the officers arrive then that activity is concealed in the same way that the question of whether jail had a gun or not was concealed that you can't the officers can't see it and therefore there's no reason to treat this case any differently than the case in j l they have to be able to see something like erratic driving or something else in order to be able to corroborate that and i assume you would you would also say to tie it into car was not the one that drove the guy off the road right that's right never mind drunk and see if the tip doesn't say anything about drugs he said no this car drove me off the road you'd say the police couldn't follow that car pull him over and a you did you drive somebody off the road you're out of absolutely the police can follow that car and that's what they should do and in fact that's what they did here in this case there was as as you're following the cars are going to do them oh goodness as to whether he drove drunk somebody off the road not looking for a drunk they're looking for somebody who drove somebody off the road right but they're if they can't see any erratic driving still going on then where is it going to go they're not going to prosecute for the reckless driving that allegedly took place we're saying they have to they have to wait they have to make the call and see if the guys there'd be the guy just calls that guy's got to talk on his cell phone while he's driving but what i'm saying that yes they have to verify in some ways whether they have some reason to believe that in fact the person that's reports reckless or drunk driving by immediately stopping the vehicle without waiting to personally observed dangerous driving that could threaten others an officer can recently reliance such a tip because the importance of the governmental interest in protecting the public from the no more isn't described how doesn't give you any details as to how they know i would say that the term reckless hits and the reason i say that is because driving is something that's intimately familiar to the average citizen and when a citizen is going to call in and make report when they use language reckless that has meaning that describes a behavior that poses an ongoing threat to the public but not necessarily drunkenness i think there are a lot of people that get tickets for reckless driving where it's not serious jail terms for driving drunk that is going to tour far from well i would say they're synonymous but i would say that one is the indicator of the other because while you can i not speeding there's plenty of people who speed really i would say reported speeding is not sufficient to have reasonable suspicion isn't that that the public has lots of familiarity with driving and they can recognize the difference between poor driving and reckless driving or something or drunk driving and when people are going to pick up the phone and make that call to nine one one they're doing so because they perceive a danger on the roadway and i think while the statistics are sparse on this the footnote to in the government's brief is particularly helpful in this regard in that they note that four calls that are made to nine one centers or for that are tracked by the state between twenty five percent of those calls result in arrests and what that shows is that the public knows what they see when they make these calls this is a far between want fifty and seventy five percent they've stopped people without just cause yes we are talking about recent suspicion so so it doesn't require certain troubled people who should have been troubled that is correct and that is always a possibility in the reasonable suspicion context what what i is you know i'm driving this guy just drove by me i looked over he didn't have a seat belt on i mean can the police pull that guy over no i don't believe that would be sufficient to pull that off because you don't have any governmental you don't have a threat to public safety and that kind of you know there's a there are laws against driving without a seatbelt because that protects people's lives certainly there are laws and the officer i guess would have reasonable suspicion that there is a traffic violation but i know that would rise to the level of implicating public safety in this context observing any of that reckless driving to stop the car further down the road yes i mean provided of course that you have the additional details of the description card location that you can and i can never understand what good does those you know let's say that  party i don't like somebody there i see they have a couple of drinks i know what kind of car he drives i know the law you can look at the license plate i call you know ten minutes later i know where he goes driving home there's this car it's white whatever it's got to this license plate it's swerving all over the road well when these are not the police go up they pull him over and find out you know you had you know fails the breathalyzer and i get my revenge the importance of those details is that they allow the officers to confirm that this is a personal observation be a personal observation of the person operating the car it may be higher knowledge and i gather one of the issues we're concerned about is people using this to you know exact revenge or do or do something else and have nothing to do with whether or not the person is violating the law on the highway yes that is true but if the personal knowledge if the officer can use that person launch to confirm ok he was correct about the report of the car or the location or the direction where it's going to be going then you have some indication that the personal knowledge is actor as opposed to a bare tip when you're talking about hidden contact then you have to look to predictive details that takes us into the jail context or that if i understand you correctly as long as you can identify the car you  need no specificity as to what the car has actually done another words you know just saying the driver was reckless is enough is that is that correct well i would say that recklessness carries information that is of the famous white horse defense you know what white horse defense your honor my client was innocent because at the time of the crime he was in yugoslavia wearing a white horse riding white horse and to prove it i have a horse here in instances where no more than the report that it's a crime that's reasonable suspicion that's and give me some other instances where the courts have upheld well that's enough well if a caller says or we're not saying common sense i'm saying what the courts have held in a position to know because he can define that he could talk about the white horse or you can talk about the car the closest case i can think of his hensley where an officer was relying on an arrest bulletin from another jurisdiction and in that case  the court did consider for purposes of whether a prior crime that it committed whether the officer reasonable such suspicion to stop that individual it took into account the nature of the offense well and whether there's a threat kirchick to correct me if i'm wrong but my recollection of hensley and you're and police department one notifies police department to put the premise of the case i had thought one for the police department one had reasonable suspicion well there were two parts to the to the case the second the first part was whether you could make a detention based on a prior crime as opposed to current immediate current understanding and so it looked to the nature of the crime and whether there was threat to public safety is valid considerations in authorizing a stop for a prior offense the second part of that was the allowing the officer to rely on another jurisdiction's reason and have to decide whether the threshold level of reasonable suspicion has been met or whether the level of probable cause has been met that courts can take into account the seriousness of the offense and what would not count as probable cause for one crime will count as probable cause for another is that what you're saying what i'm saying is that in terms of when we can deem a tip reliable and white identify two components the inquiry one is indicia reliability and the other was the content of the tip and so we have to take the seriousness of the offense of the threat to public safety into account to determine when the officer can rely on that information and i don't understand how what you're saying is different from what i just said i mean that would seem to me to work quite a substantial change and in fourth suspicion of results from a balancing of the governmental interest and balance in occurs categorically we decide that there's a reasonable suspicion standard by balancing interests but we don't do is say you know depending on how serious we think this crime is more or less will meet that reasonable suspicion standard that would be a very substantial reworking of fourth amendment law or so it seems to me maybe i'm wrong but i believe that was something that was indicated in hensley that this court looked to the nature of the offense  deciding whether or not the officer had reasonable suspicion at the inception of making that stop or crime that occurred two weeks earlier and it didn't decline to consider whether or not that would be sufficient for a misdemeanor but in taking the seriousness of the crime into account and determining whether or not they could make that stop that's a recognition that found some does play some role and in white this court recognized that the reliability component is variable there's a difference between probable cause and reason suspicion and in jail the sport left open the question of what point we need no reliability because of the seriousness of the government could you explain to me one more time why it's relevant that there were these details that it was a particular kind of crime that was so were license plate  that this case suppose another case the car just ran me off the road and it's the only the only car that's on my way one between fort bragg and the state park well i think it helps to fold there's particularities so you know who you're stopping and it goes to the totality of circumstances in helping confirm that the person actually observed what they're saying so that you have it goes to the reliability of the personal observation so it builds it adds an someone runs somebody off the road poses a grave threat public safety in that context is a chip in someone with carrying a concealed weapon and we have him that that has to be cooperate it would have involved a different calculus and that is that is correct but once you're driving drunk down the road it's you you have the threat is now posed to everybody on the highway because of the potential for that person lose control because they're more so this call that didn't say i think the guy was drunk  somebody drove you know programmed off the road yes right so this isn't it isn't a call that says there's a drunken driver it's just a call that says somebody drove irresponsibly right and that's enough w would she not i would say that in this case it isn't enough but i would say it's more than just driving a responsibly running somebody off the road flex their incapable of driving their car in a way that's without posing a safety threat to other people and when you're dealing with recent cases merely irresponsibly you around for half an hour without swerving without doing something else so they could still have stopped the car i think there may be a point where the threat to public safety would suggest that the reasonable suspicion is dissipated in that context and so after after fifty miles i thought you were saying as long as somebody had given an account that some time ago he had driven another driver off the run another driver off the road it doesn't matter whether you're drunk doesn't matter anything it was an account of an illegal acts taken place and that was enough to stop him doesn't matter what he still is now well i believe that the threat to public safety plays a role in the balance and so if that's dissipated then at that point if you have the reliability road somebody was driving really irresponsible yes and that's enough to stop him down the road it is it is because this is how drunk drivers display their actions and when you're dealing with reasonable suspicion about cutting me off too quickly you know i think that cuts right in front of me really ticks me off thinking that would present a different set of circumstances if you have an instant a recognizable instant of bad driving as opposed to something that reflects recklessness or drunkenness then you analyze the tip differently and i think that how can somebody else somebody ever be able who observes another car driving ever be able to say that person was drunk all they could see all they could observe is what they see they don't know whether the person what is causing that kind of behavior i agree and that's because what we do we look to the nature of their driving and draw reasonable inferences from and that's all officers are can ever do when they observe something they draw reasonable inferences in german whether it gives them suspicion one thing i'll point out that the c h p dispatchers the tesco in this case flex that they ask they ask what you see so that they can get that information and pass it along to the officers but i think it's an entirely different case with the tip if the tip was you know it was reported that this guy got in his car he should have turned the key on a car this guy is really drunk you should stop that car on the road i think that's totally different from somebody just saying this guy swerved a blur i must have been going well over one hundred miles an hour now if the police catch up with that person of course that person is going to slow down while the police follow the person and then when the police decide to stop they're going to go back to engaging in this intentional extremely dangerous conduct so i don't understand why there's a distinction between reporting that somebody necessarily is driving erratically so the person may be impaired and somebody who is is where you have extremely reckless driving that's intentional well i wouldn't draw that distinction i think reckless driving in that sort of itself can pose a threat to public safety that also mandates maybe it stop if someone's playing chicken with another car on the road someone is you know testing out their new ferrari is going to miles an hour reading it out of my hands those all represent threats to public safety and all those circumstances that all crime represents a threat to public safety and yet we have these standards yes we do have standards but that the threat at what point it's reasonable for the officer to rely on the content of that tape or to rely on on that tip coming in and act on it that when somebody gives their name that adds a layer of reliability to it even without verification and i think one thing observation and giving a detailed account of what occurred that report is entitled to a greater degree of reliability that you don't think there's a family going to the street corner with a couple of other teenagers with a gun in his belt represents a court brief car stops based on anonymous tips of reckless or drunken driving are reasonable under the fourth amendment because they serve a critical government interest in removing drunk been a lot of discussion that there could be of the wide variety of reckless so what other things would have stayed with a call or have to say so your honor i think i agree with the observation that there are some behaviors that pose an ongoing threat to others on the roadway and some driving violations that don't need the national highway traffic safety safety administration and other organizations do keep track of what kinds of behavior are associated with drunkenness and the court in this case of course looked at the particular behavior and said is this really a reckless driving behavior the kind of behavior that poses this imminent danger so there is a line that courts would need to draw but the courts that are engaging in this kind of analysis to draw that and of course  what goes on the other side of the line i mean what why is this on one side and then tell me what's on the other shore so examples of behavior on the other might be the seat belt violation and they also might be behaviors that it's a real judgment call whether a violation occurred or not so for instance that person didn't fully stop at a stop sign we might have doubts about whether informant who we don't know anything about can accurately perceive that but we're talking about behavior like what i think that you're saying to me in my correct that almost any lane without a signal which seems to be endemic in washington but i think that would be a harder case i'm not sure that it's correlated with with intoxication or impairment as you say it's very common but i think the behavior that we're talking about here driving somebody else off the road is the kind of behavior that shows this person is a i mean it's often their land i think that's close to the line your honor i'm not sure that it's always illegal and it's something where we may have doubts about whether the informant can accurately separate this person was breaking the law from this person wasn't it the courts are going to have to answer the question of whether this is a you know the kind of behavior that poses a weird is that i'm i think this is the question justice kagan asked earlier why how does the nature of the offense affect the reasonableness of the suspicion so we don't do in either case you have let's say the seatbelt driver it's the same same witness he said still it's a white ford the reasonableness of the suspicion would seem to me to be totally divorced from what it's about that i think that's true your honor and we actually think and you know we argued our brief that there is reasonable suspicion here when an informant gives a basis for knowledge you have reason to think they're an eyewitness but the court has also recognized that there are certain dangers on the roadway that allow intrusions even when we might not otherwise allow them so for instance in the the court said that drunk driving is such a great danger that we're going to allow even random stops of vehicles to detect drunk drivers so i think the court has indicated there are certain driving behaviors that are so dangerous will allow even suspicion which stops and here of course we're not dealing with suspicion with stops the the questions from the court of indicated some of the reasons why that's the case here we have a caller who's demonstrated their basis for knowledge and officers have been able to confirm that so we're talking about tips where the person relays the kind of details you could really only have if you were an eyewitness to this person's driving on the er well that's just not true it's a an acquaintance i know what kind of car you drive i know where he's going i didn't see anything on the road but i called the police and sailors this you know white ford swerving all over the road took this class of people who are going to have the relevant knowledge is almost exclusively eyewitnesses you may also have a few people who have seen the person's car and happen to know what direction they're headed but for the most progress talking about us very near a class of individuals that are largely going to be eyewitnesses to this person's driving when they were i'm talking about the concern that you want to have the police pull over people that you don't like where you know somebody has got something bad in the car and you don't like it and so you're going to take advantage of the fact that the police don't have to observe anything a crime had been committed so your honor i think the critical thing that's present here that wasn't present in jail is the basis for knowledge so as the passage that the justice prior read signals we're talking there about concealed criminal activity and the court pointed out in that case there's nothing in the camp that signals how the informant knows this person had a gun here in contrast the person is telling you i'm an eye witness this person just ran me off the road don't you think jail would have come out differently if the tipster had said i just saw these guys and i saw you know one of them had a gun i think this case comes out differently for two reasons one is yes the tip would be stronger than the tip in jail if the person related i wouldn't spaces but the second has to do with the imminent danger here that's posed by a car that's moving down the river and it's being operated by potentially a drunk driver and the reduced expectations of privacy you have when you're talking about a vehicle and those were front and center and say it's for the court said that even suspicion which stops can be justified by that particular danger here but that but that second danger that you may have a drunken driver on the road that danger can be eliminated by following the car you don't have to stop the car right away you can follow that if indeed the  driver seems to be driving erratically then you can stop you have probable cause i don't think you you have to automatically allow a stop in order to prevent all of the horrible so you want to arise from drug driving follow the car if he's behaving like a drunk driver then stop your officers could follow the car and if they do they may witness a subsequent dangerous behavior that could justify pulling over the car the problem is that the subsequent dangerous behavior they may observe may be the car swerving into another lane and hitting another vehicle on a lead that is so remote i mean it seems to me you're asking us to adopt a broad rule that is contrary to to what we normally do for for searches and seizures because now in there would seem to be very rarely before the police can stop the drunk driver he kill so quickly i mean i suppose it could happen now and then but it's it's pretty here i don't think it's a remote harm at all and this is a farm that causes one third of all of traffic accidents that takes tens of thousands of lives a year and it's a harm that this court has always said is a part of the first we're that justifies the kind of about the driving so if the put he said immediately stop person or a but don't we don't we had to take account that there was no agreed that police might follow a car for such a long period of time that the reasonable suspicion would dissipate on the facts of this case your honor the record indicates there were five minutes between when the officers first saw the car and when they pulled it over they weren't five minutes of uninterrupted observation there were five minutes in which the officers were turning their cars around because they were headed in the opposite direction or catching up to a car along the freeway so the california supreme court analyzed that that delay and found that the fact that they additional i don't know if we have to get into that drunk driving is three miles south of the humble county border on mt i do know the answer is it in the record i mean on many sections of that road in mendocino county you drive someone up the road they're dead i mean they're sheer drop and and so i just wonder if i look that up here what's the situation where this supposedly took place i the only thing i can point to about that your honor is the way that the california supreme court created this which is which is that because they pointed to the fact that know or the suspect that the guy driving the white car has a lot of marijuana in the trunk they have no basis for pulling him over and they say well guess what we got an anonymous tip that he was driving erratically so we pulled him over we're on what protection is there against that are willing to lie about what they saw were you know in the in the cases of a rogue officers and they may exist but this rule isn't going to prevent new rule is going to prevent that officers could just as easily live out what they saw thank you in this case we're talking about a single uncorroborated tip of reckless driving after that single incident the car the truck went for questioning one thousand miles with no indication of any other problem and then was followed for up to five miles by the police officers again with no indication of any erratic driving or any other violation that would have been a reason for pulling them over immediately there's no reason to believe that the driver of this truck presented any kind of danger about being about to lose control which is the argument that the state is relying on and the federal government and this neither one of them came up with any anecdotes even where that has actually occurred much less any statistics to show that that is a serious problem of people losing control while they're being under surveillance by the police officers this case is even farther away from the situation then j l was in jail you had a person who was armed to could have pulled out a gun and started firing and any moment here you have something where there's no indication of any ongoing risk to the public i don't think i don't know that there's a good answer to the bomb question i read through the transcript from the oral argument in jail i  seem to be any good arguments that any good discussion discussions there either as to which way the court could go but this case that in jail the court said there's no reason for us to resolve that and have to speculate about a situation where that would happen in this case i submit there's even less reason for the court to speculate about the bomb situation or even the kidnap exam optional i find that on satisfactory because if you unless you're willing to say it doesn't matter whether it's a bomb atomic bomb a little bomb and then there there must be if you want to draw the line someplace and you going to have to distinguish between those reports of crimes that are serious enough to be on one side of the line and those reports of a quantum that are not serious enough to be on that side of the line  either have to go all the way or you have to draw a line and if you're going to draw a line i would like to know where the linus are out except i don't think i don't think you can draw the line in terms of reasonable suspicion because then you're going to have the i forget about reasonable suspicion just  you can say it can never be done even if it's an atomic bomb even if it's some other type of bomb you can say that or you can say no there's a line someplace if you're going to say there's a line someplace and really i think you need to tell us where the line is your honor i think the line is certainly when we get into the bomb situation but not in terms of reasonable suspicion the severity of the crime does not affect it but the court could fashion a rule that would say there's an exception in this case that would have for bomb for any kind of a bomb well no i don't think i think if they if there's as always and then sells a white a white prius as a bomb i doubt that doesn't seem to be the sort of case under the talent search that's where this court would find reasonable suspicion about drawing a line in it intentional conduct going it was a bomb is going to use it he's intentionally going to use it well there may be intentionally doing action that is going to harm more than one person as opposed to maybe this person might accidently because he's a little break in the bridge could hurt somebody so much to me there's a clear line between somebody who's who's bent on an intentional crime and somebody who might harm somebody because  though those are two significant distinctions certainly between the bomb analogy and the situation even in that in the drunken driving situation where you don't have anybody is intentionally trying to harm anyone and the magnitude of the risk is much greater than the bottom somebody has five drinks and goes and gets in the car that's not intentionally trying to harm someone or recklessly terms of their or their decision to get drunk there's intent there in terms of by the time the officer becomes aware of it there's no indication that that drunk driver is going down the road trying to harm somebody there is an occasion that maybe to do and he did it to be driving properly