Ohio Police post fake "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" signs on I-271

[thenetwork]

Bottom line is that they are looking for the cross-country drug carriers who have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of narcs, not necessarily those who have a $20 rock tucked in their console.

I don't see a problem with it.  I'm sick and tired of all of these ACLU whiners who say it's a violation of freedom. If you have or do something illegal and you are out in the public, then you deserve to be busted. Whether they catch you at a checkpoint or on a sidewalk security camera.  If you have nothing to hide, and Big Brother is watching you in public, whoop-de-do. 

I just don't like these ACLU cases in which ONE person out of hundreds cry foul when they see something THEY don't like that the majority is doing, like saying a prayer in school, or putting up a religious scenes on PUBLIC lands at Christmas.  If you don't like it, then just IGNORE it.  It's these onsey-twosey whack jobs that are violating MY rights and the rights of others. 

<Off my constitutional soapbox>

[NE2]

I reported the above. Does that count as irony?

[kphoger]

If someone passes by a CHECKPOINT AHEAD sign, and then does a legal maneuver to turn around, that doesn't make it illegal for a police officer to pull the person over and ask if (s)he may search the vehicle.  It only becomes illegal once the officer demands to search the vehicle.  Isn't that right?

[hbelkins]

I don't see a problem with it.  I'm sick and tired of all of these ACLU whiners who say it's a violation of freedom. If you have or do something illegal and you are out in the public, then you deserve to be busted. Whether they catch you at a checkpoint or on a sidewalk security camera.  If you have nothing to hide, and Big Brother is watching you in public, whoop-de-do. 

I just don't like these ACLU cases in which ONE person out of hundreds cry foul when they see something THEY don't like that the majority is doing, like saying a prayer in school, or putting up a religious scenes on PUBLIC lands at Christmas.  If you don't like it, then just IGNORE it.  It's these onsey-twosey whack jobs that are violating MY rights and the rights of others. 

<Off my constitutional soapbox>

Amen.

[hbelkins]

In Kentucky, DUI checkpoints are set up as roadblocks and every car is stopped. State police often advertise them in advance, but local police often do not. Drivers are asked for license, sometimes registration, and more often proof of insurance. An officer will usually check to see if the license plate is expired or current while the other one checks the license and insurance card. This gives them the opportunity to see if they smell alcohol or pot in the vehicle. Driving is a privilege granted by the state, not a God-given right. Kentucky also has an implied-consent law that states that by accepting a license to drive, you automatically agree to submit to a blood, breath or urine test for alcohol or drugs. I can't remember if refusal to submit is a violation of the law or just incurs an automatic license suspension.

I cannot ever remember going through a roadblock and seeing a drug dog present to sniff the cars. It used to be that the local cops recognized me and just engaged in some idle chit-chat when I went through one. They never asked for any paperwork because they knew me.

[J N Winkler]

If someone passes by a CHECKPOINT AHEAD sign, and then does a legal maneuver to turn around, that doesn't make it illegal for a police officer to pull the person over and ask if (s)he may search the vehicle.  It only becomes illegal once the officer demands to search the vehicle.  Isn't that right?

No.  The test is still probable cause, which can be waived only by the suspect's consent to a search.  The officer is free (within certain limits) to lie and misrepresent the suspect's right not to consent to search, but the suspect does not have the legal ability physically to prevent a search.  The standard remedy is to make a loud show of refusal to consent.  If it is later found that the police did not have probable cause for the search, then refusal to consent to the search allows any evidence of criminal activity gained through the search to be discarded.

From the officer's point of view, saying "May I search?" rather than, "You are legally required to allow me to search" is a foot-in-the-door compliance tactic, and is designed to encourage the suspect to waive the probable cause requirement by leading him to think that his encounter with law enforcement (which, even for law-abiding people, is generally unwanted) will end more quickly and on more favorable terms if he or she is cooperative.  This is rarely the case; a request to search is almost never innocent.

I don't know if police officers can be prosecuted for bad-faith searches (i.e., warrantless searches they make without consent and in full knowledge that they do not have probable cause and, therefore, any evidence turned up will be subject to the exclusionary rule).  An ordinary citizen engaging in this activity makes himself or herself criminally liable for breaking and entering, unlawful trespass, etc., but I don't know if the same is true for police officers.

Edit:  A Google search on {Is consent to search valid when the police obtain it by deception?} turns up interesting hits, including a training document for federal law enforcement officers which lays out the circumstances under which it is and is not acceptable to use deception to get a suspect to agree to a search.  The test used by the courts is whether consent to search was voluntary; another training document lays out some of the factors that are considered.  A "Know your rights" blurb also lays out some of the exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement for a search warrant.

[hbelkins]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

[Avalanchez71]

I do not have any contraband in my vehicle; however, I should be secure in my person and property.  Therefore I do not consent to a warrant less searches absent probable cause.  If I decide that I do not want to go through a road block and turn around then so be it.  The courts have ruled in many states that a lawful usurpation of a roadblock does not rise to the level of probable cause to stop a vehicle.  The problem is that many of these locations are usually chosen so one may usually not make a legal maneuver to avoid one, absent to phony roadblocks mentioned.

Many of these locations are chosen for officer safety in mind and the flow of traffic.  However, other reasons are used such as staging areas and the convenience factor with continuing one with the road block in lieu of avoiding the road block.

[Alps]

I do not have any contraband in my vehicle; however, I should be secure in my person and property.  Therefore I do not consent to a warrant less searches absent probable cause.

This. This is what America is about.

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

This. This is what fascism is about.

[hbelkins]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

This. This is what fascism is about.

[Scott5114]

I just don't like these ACLU cases in which ONE person out of hundreds cry foul when they see something THEY don't like that the majority is doing, like saying a prayer in school, or putting up a religious scenes on PUBLIC lands at Christmas.  If you don't like it, then just IGNORE it.  It's these onsey-twosey whack jobs that are violating MY rights and the rights of others. 

The government is supposed to be representative of all people. As I am not religious, when public resources are used for religious purposes, the government is not representing me. I don't see why someone should not complain when the government is behaving in a manner that doesn't represent oneself, even if they happen to be in the minority.

If I was doing something the government didn't like, they wouldn't just ignore me.

[bugo]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

Cops are known for trashing the interiors of cars they search.  You consent to that?  Can I come trash your car?

[SP Cook]

The bottom line is by placing these signs, the government is lying to you, which is always wrong and immoral.

+1

[SP Cook]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Zain

http://truthinjustice.org/zainreport.htm

http://truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro_Tracker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Innocent_Man_(film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman#George_Zimmerman

Question authority.

[Pete from Boston]

If you don't like it, then just IGNORE it.

Your government thanks you for helping it do, well, whatever it wants.

[J N Winkler]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

This is not really true.

*  In most jurisdictions in the US, the police are allowed to lie to you and tell you that they found incriminating evidence in a search when they did not.

*  Unlike many other industrial democracies, we allow Reid interrogations and in fact carry them out as a matter of course when a suspect is in custody.  The aim of such an interrogation is to elicit a confession, not information, and the psychological pressure that is applied to people who do not confess immediately is so intense that many innocent people falsely confess to the crimes of which they are accused.

*  A search that turns up dry can still result in considerable expense and loss of liberty, owing to the arrest procedures in effect in a given jurisdiction.  Your vehicle can be towed to the police garage at your expense, and the charge is not refunded if no incriminating evidence is found; if you are booked on suspicion of a crime, you can usually expect at minimum an overnight stay in jail even if you are released without charge; and once you are in custody you are placed in close proximity with snitches who are perfectly willing to fabricate confessions and attribute them to you if that will reduce the amount of time they have to spend in custody.

Our criminal justice system is fundamentally oriented toward disposition of cases, not toward putting the guilty in jail and ensuring that the innocent are kept out of it.  This is why the momentum is always in favor of getting the innocent to confess to crimes they didn't do, or if they fail to confess, then to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence (in the context of a plea bargain) when they are arraigned.  The US Supreme Court has already ruled that innocent people falsely convicted of crimes have no right to exoneration.  This is why an innocent person caught in the system always needs a competent and motivated lawyer with the ability to resist the progression toward an unfavorable disposition.  It is also why, in states such as Texas which have a long history of appointing incompetent drunks to represent indigent defendants, a citizen has to be particularly careful not only never to break the law, but also never to engage in activity that gives rise to police suspicion.

[kkt]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

Delay.  Trashing the car in order to search it.  Seeing something legal but embarrassing.

What do you think the 4th Amendment is there for?

[Scott5114]

in states such as Texas which have a long history of appointing incompetent drunks to represent indigent defendants

I think this is the most strongly-worded sentence I've ever heard J.N. Winkler say.

[GeekJedi]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

Cops are known for trashing the interiors of cars they search.  You consent to that?  Can I come trash your car?

Care to offer proof to back that up?

[paleocon121171]

Read it on MSN. They posted the signs when there actually wasn't a checkpoint at all - it was to scare drivers. And it must've worked, because some made illegal turns in an attempt to avoid it where they were then stopped by police (and what do you know - drugs were found inside of their vehicles).

Your thoughts? I personally think it's an effective strategy, especially since some people would try dumb things to avoid it and end up getting caught anyway.

Source: http://t.now.msn.com/fake-drug-checkpoint-set-up-by-ohio-cops

My question is: how does 271 qualify as a bypass? Its eastern terminus is I-90. Wouldn't that make it a "spur" of 71?

[paleocon121171]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

I don't even know how to respond to such blatant ignorance other than with a slow shaking of my head back and forth.

[paleocon121171]

I call it entrapment.  A lawyer might call it that as well.

A judge might not.  "Entrapment" requires the police to do something that makes even the innocent violate the law.  It doesn't include stings and other tactics to smoke out the guilty.

It's one thing if there are convenient, legal ways around the pseudo-checkpoint -- even innocent people might take those detours just to avoid traffic backups, so that's not necessarily probable cause for stopping and searching detouring traffic.  (Then again, cops usually are not so stupid to set up real or phony checkpoints in such places.)  But if people are going so far as to violate the law to avoid the false checkpoint, that justifies at least stops and tickets for the illegal turns, and maybe also a search to determine why they broke the law just to avoid a checkpoint. 

Making an illegal turn is not probable cause for searching anything more than one's license and car registration.

Also, there are plenty of liberty-minded people who would avoid such checkpoints for the sake of protecting their privacy and 4th Amendment rights, not necessarily for the sake of evading law enforcement's detection of drugs in their possession. The whole "you have nothing to hide if you did nothing wrong argument" is something I'd expect to hold up at a judicial court in the former Soviet Union, not the United States of America.

[Avalanchez71]

I call it entrapment.  A lawyer might call it that as well.

A judge might not.  "Entrapment" requires the police to do something that makes even the innocent violate the law.  It doesn't include stings and other tactics to smoke out the guilty.

It's one thing if there are convenient, legal ways around the pseudo-checkpoint -- even innocent people might take those detours just to avoid traffic backups, so that's not necessarily probable cause for stopping and searching detouring traffic.  (Then again, cops usually are not so stupid to set up real or phony checkpoints in such places.)  But if people are going so far as to violate the law to avoid the false checkpoint, that justifies at least stops and tickets for the illegal turns, and maybe also a search to determine why they broke the law just to avoid a checkpoint. 

Making an illegal turn is not probable cause for searching anything more than one's license and car registration.

Also, there are plenty of liberty-minded people who would avoid such checkpoints for the sake of protecting their privacy and 4th Amendment rights, not necessarily for the sake of evading law enforcement's detection of drugs in their possession. The whole "you have nothing to hide if you did nothing wrong argument" is something I'd expect to hold up at a judicial court in the former Soviet Union, not the United States of America.

This is true.  Making an illegal u turn is just probable cause for obtaining one's identity for a citation.  However, this is where the whole mind game begins getting back to that statement if you don't have anything you having nothing to hide.  This is where they play that game to gain consent to search.

[paleocon121171]

Bottom line is that they are looking for the cross-country drug carriers who have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of narcs, not necessarily those who have a $20 rock tucked in their console.

I don't see a problem with it.  I'm sick and tired of all of these ACLU whiners who say it's a violation of freedom. If you have or do something illegal and you are out in the public, then you deserve to be busted. Whether they catch you at a checkpoint or on a sidewalk security camera.  If you have nothing to hide, and Big Brother is watching you in public, whoop-de-do. 

I just don't like these ACLU cases in which ONE person out of hundreds cry foul when they see something THEY don't like that the majority is doing, like saying a prayer in school, or putting up a religious scenes on PUBLIC lands at Christmas.  If you don't like it, then just IGNORE it.  It's these onsey-twosey whack jobs that are violating MY rights and the rights of others. 

<Off my constitutional soapbox>

A car is not public property. Unless the person was exhibiting erratic driving patterns that pose a clear and present danger to nearby motorists, there is no legal justification for randomly searching their vehicle for drugs or alcohol. You seem to pick and choose the freedoms that you enjoy. If there was a highway checkpoint for assault weapons in a state that banned assault weapon possession (i.e. California), would you tell people not to carry their assault weapons in "public" places (i.e. their car)? Or is that an arbitrary exception for you? Not exactly a faithful adherence to the Constitution.

[Pete from Boston]

The bottom line is, if you don't have anything illegal in your car, a search won't result in any trouble for you.

Delay.  Trashing the car in order to search it.  Seeing something legal but embarrassing.

What do you think the 4th Amendment is there for?

And public humiliation, the kind that damages reputations of people who have nothing to hide in the eyes of one's passing-by peers.  It is damaging to be investigated, not just accused or convicted.  The police are supposed to restrain themselves accordingly to actual good reasons to investigate you.