Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 828

ORDERS 

981 

558 U. S. 

October 20, 2009 

was  presumably  an  eyewitness;  (3)  the  fact  that  trafﬁc  stops  are 
typically  less  invasive  than  searches  or  seizures  of  individuals  on 
foot;  and  (4)  the  diminished  expectation  of  privacy  enjoyed  by 
individuals  driving  their  cars  on  public  roads.  A  minority  of  ju­
risdictions,  meanwhile,  take  the  same  position  as  the  Virginia 
Supreme Court, requiring that ofﬁcers ﬁrst conﬁrm an anonymous 
tip  of  drunk  or  erratic  driving  through  their  own  independent 
observation.3  This  conﬂict  has  been  expressly  noted  by  the 
lower  courts.4 

The  conﬂict  is  clear  and  the  stakes  are  high.  The  effect  of  the 
rule  below  will  be  to  grant  drunk  drivers  “one  free  swerve”  be­
fore  they  can  legally  be  pulled  over  by  police.  It  will  be  difﬁcult 
for  an  ofﬁcer  to  explain  to  the  family  of  a  motorist  killed  by  that 
swerve  that  the  police  had  a  tip  that  the  driver  of  the  other  car 
was  drunk,  but  that  they  were  powerless  to  pull  him  over,  even 
for  a  quick  check. 

Maybe  the  decision  of  the  Virginia  Supreme  Court  below  was 
correct,  and  the  Fourth  Amendment  bars  police  from  acting  on 
anonymous  tips  of  drunk  driving  unless  they  can  verify  each  tip. 
If  so,  then  the  dangerous  consequences  of  this  rule  are  unavoid­
able.  But  the  police  should  have  every  legitimate  tool  at  their 
disposal  for  getting  drunk  drivers  off  the  road.  I  would  grant 
certiorari  to  determine  if  this  is  one  of  them. 

No.  08–1441.  Boim  et  ux.  v.  Salah.  C.  A.  7th  Cir.  Motion 
of  Zionist  Organization  of  America  for  leave  to  ﬁle  a  brief  as 
amicus  curiae  granted.  Certiorari  denied.  Reported  below: 
549  F.  3d  685. 

No.  09–200.  Kim  v.  City  of  Federal  Way,  Washington. 

C.  A.  9th  Cir.  Certiorari  before  judgment  denied. 

No.  09–205.  Lapetina  v.  Carlsen,  Superintendent,  Ul­
ster  Correctional  Facility,  et  al.  C.  A.  2d  Cir.  Certiorari 

3 See,  e. g.,  McChesney  v.  State,  988  P.  2d  1071  (Wyo.  1999);  Common­
wealth  v.  Lubiejewski,  49  Mass.  App.  212,  729  N.  E.  2d  288  (2000);  State 
v.  Sparen,  No.  CR00258199S,  2001  WL  206078  (Conn.  Super.  Ct.,  Feb.  9, 
2001) (unpublished). 

4 See,  e. g.,  Wheat,  supra,  at  729–730  (reviewing  cases  upholding  stops, 
then noting that some courts “have reached a different conclusion”); Wells, 
supra, at 1084, 136 P. 3d, at 814 (“split of authority”).