A person's word that an infraction has been comitted does, however, reach the status of being able to ask the suspected vehicle to pull over and expect the driver to answer at least one question, which probably would have only amounted to "have you had anything to drink tonight?", perhaps with a caveat that they had received a report about the vehicle so that the driver understands the reason for the question. Police don't even really *need* a reason to expect that you answer such a question (roadside checkstops being an excellent example of this)... The fact that they had received a tip that identified a particular vehicle is more than enough to justify them tracking the car down and questioning him.

Of course, you can, if you want, always say that you won't answer any questions without your lawyer, but considering the nature of the question, all doing that would be liable to do is end up with you being detained until your lawyer actually arrived. If one isn't driving impaired in the first place, what possible rational reason could one have for not answering a question they would ask absolutely *anybody* they had stopped on suspicion of impairment?

Even if you had the plate #, you'd still need to tell the police where and when you had allegedly seen the vehicle. It would fairly quickly be determined that it was a false report. Bear in mind that deliberately making a a false police report is a crime.

Oh... and perhaps you were unaware, but 911 traces all calls. Still want to make that false report?

Netflix pays for the rights to broadcast the shows that it provides. It's my understanding that Aereo does not. If they did, there would not be any issue of unlicensed rebroadcasting in the first place.

If the [sic] constitutes a 'public performance,' then so does the act of downloading a copyrighted document stored in a cloud storage service

Who stored the copyrighted document on the cloud storage device? If it was the user who had already purchased the rights to said storage from the provider of the copyrighted content then there's no problem at all. If it was the cloud service itself or somebody else that stored it there, ready for any end user who pays for the service to access it, then I can see there could be problems

At a road check-stop set up by police to regulate impaired driving, the police don't even need a reason to stop your vehicle and ask if you've had anything to drink. A 911 tip actually gives them more than what they'd need to have just cause to stop a vehicle, and police are not doing their job if they don't follow it up. They do where I live, and I'm glad of it.

Anyways, there is absolutely nothing illegal about the police stopping a vehicle where the driver has been reported to have done something illegal. When calling 911, however, you do have to actually tell them what the person did which makes you think they are doing something illegal, and you must have actually personally witnessed whatever it was that they did which made you believe that they were breaking the law.

And considering that they can trace absolutely any call to 911, the number of fraudulent reports tends to be rather low.

You don't have to use strong language... all you have to do is tell them that you witnessed a car driving erattically, and believe the driver may be impaired. You tell them where, and when, and any information about the vehicle you can offer, and they will send out a unit to intercept the vehicle if they have any reason at all to believe that you are telling the truth. Again, I know this because I've done it. If they find absolutely nothing wrong, they will probably investigate *YOUR* call to check and see if it was a fraudulent report. I've never had the latter issue happen to me because I've never made a fraudulent report through 911. Since they can trace all calls to 911 anyways, the number of fraudulent calls tends to be relatively low and is probably not considered a significant risk factor.

Probably because most people usually can't be bothered to call in a complaint for bad driving to 911 just because the person is old... you would need to report suspicion of impairment for the police to do anything.

The stuff might be 100% legal, but it still has to be something that the person actually witnessed firsthand. Saying that you "think" somebody is doing something illegal is not valid unless you actually saw them *DO* something that you thought was illegal.

And yes, I know this. Although this knowledge is admittedly based on my own jurisdiction and it's possible laws may be different elsewhere.

It was true already.... this supreme court decision simply settles the matter. Police have always pull over *ANY* vehicle they want to if they have any reason to suspect that the driver is breaking the law. A 911 report has always been a reason... I know this because I've done it.

Bad driving *does* give reasonable suspicion of impairment, and even an anonymous report is certainly sufficient cause to stop the vehicle and briefly question the driver... which in general would amount to them just saying that they received a report about the vehicle... Since they had not personally witnessed the erratic driving, they would have had no basis to even ask him to get outside of his vehicle, but would have just questioned him through an open window, After quickly checking to see if there were any other reports about the vehicle, they would have asked the driver if they had anything to drink that evening. If the answer was no, and they had no reason to suspect the person was lying (ie, he was not visibly impaired), then they would have just let the person go.

It was only after they had stopped the vehicle and actually questioned the guy that gave them further reasonable suspicion to search his vehicle, and find that he was guilty of another crime.

What measures did said officer take to avoid being fined for a fraudulent 911 emergency call? 911 calls are traced, you know... practically instantaneously, in fact.

That kind of weak language would not be sufficient, you would actually have to say what they were doing that was causing you to believe a crime was being committed, and there would have to be a reasonable basis for presuming it. In the case of anonymous caller in the story, the reported vehicle had actually done something illegal.

Comparing running low on fuel to being low on charge s a flawed comparison. It takes less than10 minutes to completely refuel a car which will get you another 600 or so miles. It takes hours to fully recharge anelectric vehicle and even then, it has a fraction of the range. When you can get absolutely anywhere you want to be, as far away as you want to be, in a tesla or any electric vehicle, in about the same amount of time that you could cover that distance in a gasoline vehicle, range anxiety will vanish

You are presuming that much of range anxiety was ever alleged to be based on rational thinking to begin with. Of course, however irrational and based on emotion it might be, it is no less a reality, and still merits being addressed.

When you can go a thousand or.more miles in one day in an electric vehicle, whether that's on a single charge, or accomplished though rapid recharges that take only a few minutes each, at any of what should be ubiquitous recharge stations around the country, comparable to refuelling a car at a gas station, range anxiety will disappear.

Depends on the thickness of the sheet. If a sheet has thickness d, The maximum surface area of a sheet that fits in a box of volume V (assuming all side lengths are the same) is V^(1/3)/d *V^(2/3). If d is enough orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the box, the area can get to be quite large.