tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4250349349740454919.post5588229720281689698..comments2023-11-05T07:47:51.275-05:00Comments on Criminal Law Practitioner Blog: Navarette v. California: Will the U.S. Supreme Court Rule in Favor of an Anonymous Tip Exception for Reckless and Drunk Driving? Criminal Law Brief Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06222228757094786628noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4250349349740454919.post-62953906155264908722013-12-19T13:52:02.307-05:002013-12-19T13:52:02.307-05:00Nice post! If you are drinking and driving you are...Nice post! If you are drinking and driving you are committing a crime if your blood alcohol level is over the legal limit. A drink driving offense can be imposed on public roads and private properties. Thanks for sharing..<br><br><a href="http://www.criminallaw.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Click Here</a>emilyharriehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285950153464051017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4250349349740454919.post-88390053917221950182013-12-17T09:35:51.415-05:002013-12-17T09:35:51.415-05:00Nice post! A drink driving offense can be imposed ...Nice post! A drink driving offense can be imposed on public roads and private properties. A person who is not actually driving but is over the alcohol limit and sitting on the driver’s seat while the keys are in the ignition may also get in trouble with the law. Thanks for sharing..<br><br><a href="http://www.notguilty.com.au" rel="nofollow">Assault Charges</a>hayley antolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07221238946898820309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4250349349740454919.post-70773332222868671762013-10-25T13:31:29.539-04:002013-10-25T13:31:29.539-04:00Andrew Kartchner • a day ago △ ▽ − Remember tha...<br>Andrew Kartchner <br>• a day ago △ ▽ <br> − <br><br> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Remember that the Supreme Court, and courts in many states, have shown a willingness to change the rules of criminal procedure a bit when drunk driving is involved. The prime example of this is in the Supreme Court's checkpoints doctrine, which allows checkpoints for drunk driving but not for drug trafficking. The Court in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz reasoned that the great hazards of drunk driving justify the slight intrusion into privacy induced by checkpoint stops. But the Court in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond limited that holding to areas of public danger, holding that catching drug traffickers does not protect the public the way stopping drunk drivers does. If this concern for drunk driving continues into the Navarrette case, I expect the Court to once again give police more latitude to stop drunk drivers using anonymous tips than they would otherwise have. (Although the Navarrette case is about drugs, the defendants were reported to have been driving recklessly, which is the quintessential indicator of drunk driving.).<br><br>You can read my article on the topic at 25 Reg. U. L. Rev. 185 (2012) or on SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338531Andrew Kartchnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11452420023247743072noreply@blogger.com