In an effort to address the protracted crime epidemic plaguing our city, the Pine Bluff Police Department is poised to launch a new mechanism for citizen input. Billed as “text to tip,” the new system will allow concerned citizens to send completely anonymous and untraceable “tips” via text message for the purpose of altering police to any criminal or suspicious activity that they witness.
Working through an intermediary company, local callers send their tip to a number in Canada. The Canadian company removes all identifiers (the text meta-data, to use the technical parlance) and forwards the tip to police. The rationale behind this process is that it could provide citizens with additional confidence in the anonymity of their referrals.
We applaud the police for their “outside the box” thinking on this matter. We also believe that the integration of emerging media technology is a step in the right direction. Many city officials have demonstrated their understanding of social media and as such, it’s fitting that we further embrace the potential of the tools to which we have access.
All this said, anonymous tips are a particularly prickly topic in legal circles. Several cases concerning the value of anonymous tips have come before the U. S. Supreme Court. In a number of these cases, police actions based on anonymous tips have been ruled unconstitutional.
One case from Florida is of special interest. In 2000, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Florida v. J. L., that mere fact that police had received an uncorroborated anonymous tip describing a person who was said to possess a gun did not justify the police stopping that individual for the purpose of conducting a frisk. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsberg framed the decision in terms of the landmark cases, Terry v. Ohio, “In the [present] case, the officers’ suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from any observations of their own but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. Unlike a tip from a known informant whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held responsible if her allegations turn out to be fabricated… anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity…”
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Another case, this time from Virginia, reflects further Constitutional hurdles for police acting on anonymous tips. On New Year’s Eve, 2005, Richmond, Virginia police received an anonymous tip about an erratic driver. The tip described the driver, his green Nissan Altima and the direction of travel. Police soon located the driver, Joseph Harris. He was driving slowly, but not erratically. The officer stopped Harris, whereupon he discovered Harris reeked of alcohol. The officer administered a field sobriety test and arrested Harris for driving while intoxicated.
In 2009, the U. S. Supreme Court let stand a Virginia court’s decision overturning Harris’s DUI conviction. The Virginia Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the officer had not personally (i.e. independently) confirmed that Harris’s driving posed a danger. By arresting Harris without independently verifying that a driving violation had occurred, the officer had violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
While the Supreme Court did not elaborate on its reasoning, the Harris case when with others suggest a growing reluctance by the Court to validate police actions based on uncorroborated anonymous tips.
Accordingly, we renew our praise for the Pine Bluff Police Department’s willingness to try new things. At the same time, however, we caution the administration to properly and comprehensively train its officers about the current legal climate and Constitutional requirements of properly acting on any tips their new text program may elicit.