Members of the U.S. Supreme Court seldom accuse their peers of behaving irresponsibly. But Chief Justice John Roberts has done just that - and he is correct.

Roberts was not able to persuade a majority of justices to review a case from Virginia, in which a drunken-driving conviction was overruled by the state Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia joined Roberts in objecting to the majority decision.

The case involved a Virginia man pulled over by police who had received an anonymous tip that he was driving while intoxicated. He was drunk and police arrested him.

A Fourth Amendment defense was mounted successfully by the man's attorneys. Their argument was based on the amendment's probable-cause clause, and the Virginia high court agreed. So did a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices, to judge by their refusal to hear an appeal of the case.

But Roberts and Scalia disagreed. As Roberts noted in his dissent, the court's decision grants drunken drivers "one free swerve" that could result in a fatal accident. Roberts explained that the decision means, in effect, that after police receive a tip about a drunken driver, they will be forced to follow him, delaying an arrest, until they witness dangerous driving. That first demonstration of hazardous driving could involve an accident.

Roberts is correct. When police receive a tip - be it one about a drunken driver or one about someone brandishing a loaded gun - they should be free to investigate.

If the tip proves to be false, little harm is done because the suspect will be released immediately. But forcing law enforcement officers to dismiss tips until they witness a crime may put the public in danger unnecessarily.