(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblu.stb.s-msn.com%2Fi%2F77%2F2b6e6266c2f6a5e39354a5846e6f86%2F_h473_w840_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg&hash=5582487fedbf4b2dcd091c487ebcb30aba9564c9)
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
I call it entrapment. A lawyer might call it that as well.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/126745/
Entrapment. I'd be less likely to go through this "checkpoint" and divert off - for the sake of not having my car illegally searched for something that doesn't exist, or to give a reason for a cop to pry through my belongings.
If you don't think this doesn't happen to enough innocent folks, then I've got some stories to share - some personal, others not.
e.g. Drinking a bottle of Ale-8, ginger-ale fizzy drink, isn't reasonable suspicion to go through my trunk and bring out the drug dogs. The cop was not pleased when I lawyered up and sued the department and won.
Quote from: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 05:59:25 PM
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.
I've seen these on I-80 in Nebraska on multiple occasions as well- in Nebraska's case, there either is no cop or they put the sign by a rural exit, making it appear as though the checkpoint is on the freeway, and then the cops wait off the interchange and check every car that gets off the freeway
The bottom line is by placing these signs, the government is lying to you, which is always wrong and immoral.
Quote from: bugo on July 03, 2013, 08:25:05 PM
The bottom line is by placing these signs, the government is lying to you, which is always the case.
FTFY
Quote from: bugo on July 03, 2013, 08:25:05 PM
The bottom line is by placing these signs, the government is lying to you, which is always wrong and immoral.
There is a drug checkpoint ahead. But it's not where the drug runner is expecting. It's by the crossover. The next exit, etc.
As corco said, I've seen these on I-80 in Nebraska and NOTHING is ahead. No cops, cones, barrels, etc. But, it's by very sparsely used exit ramps that has no services...
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 03, 2013, 08:33:12 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 03, 2013, 08:25:05 PM
The bottom line is by placing these signs, the government is lying to you, which is always wrong and immoral.
There is a drug checkpoint ahead. But it's not where the drug runner is expecting. It's by the crossover. The next exit, etc.
As corco said, I've seen these on I-80 in Nebraska and NOTHING is ahead. No cops, cones, barrels, etc. But, it's by very sparsely used exit ramps that has no services...
"Ahead" indicates the through route. A more truthful sign would be "drug checkpoint next exit". The sign is a lie.
I tend to agree with Oscar. I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but here is my amateur take.
"Entrapment" is where the authorities have provoked or induced someone to break the law - someone who has not committed a crime up to that point.
That's not what is happening here. By possessing illegal drugs, the perps have already broken the law.
Is it entrapment to induce or provoke someone into (by their own actions/reactions) providing the "probable cause"? Maybe, but I doubt it. It's a different fine line.
It may very well be legal, but that doesn't make it any less slimy.
Cops are allowed to lie to you. Never trust them.
Entrapment would be a sign saying "Drug Checkpoint ahead, turn around now if you don't want to go through it" and then pulling over anyone who makes a U-Turn.
In this case nobody is forced to turn around and anyone making a U-Turn on this limited access highway would be breaking the law and immediately be pulled over for that infraction. If they're also carrying drugs, they'll get it for that too.
I'm not sure how this is slimy. The only people affected by this "lie" is someone who is carrying drugs. At best, if you're "protesting" the checkpoint, you'd get a ticket for the illegal U-Turn.
North of Wichita, when they did this sort of thing, they posted the warning sign in advance of an exit, and then waited for people who turned around legally at that exit.
I gave up on the Drug War™ back when I was in my mid-20s. Repeal it already, OK?
:rolleyes:
Mike
Quote from: kphoger on July 04, 2013, 10:42:10 AM
North of Wichita, when they did this sort of thing, they posted the warning sign in advance of an exit, and then waited for people who turned around legally at that exit.
So what happened to the people who did the turnaround? Just some pointed questioning about why someone happened to be turning around at that exit, looking for an excuse to do a search? Or did the cops just go ahead and do a search (with or without motorist permission)?
Smarter thing for the motorists familiar with the area to use the exit to take a back road around the supposed checkpoint, rather than do a U-turn which would unavoidably prevent or delay their planned travels. A back road detour, that doesn't add much to travel time, is a more plausible reason (and so less likely to be "probable cause") to take the exit than a turnaround.
So yeah, probable cause would be "you exited when you saw the sign." They couldn't have it on the highway itself, because then there would be no cause to search your vehicle.
Quote from: kphoger on July 04, 2013, 10:42:10 AM
North of Wichita, when they did this sort of thing, they posted the warning sign in advance of an exit, and then waited for people who turned around legally at that exit.
Oh goody, that means the person who is using that exit to get back to the exit he/she missed is suddenly under "probable cause" of transporting drugs.
This drug war bullshit has got to end.
I went past a DUI checkpoint in NC several years ago. It was announced on the overhead VMS but was actually set up at the top of the next exit ramp.
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2013, 06:45:00 PMQuote from: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 05:59:25 PM
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.
This is my analysis as well: it is not avoiding the checkpoint itself, but rather breaking the law to do so, that gives the police probable cause for search. If, however, it is possible to avoid the checkpoint (whether real or not) wholly through legal driving maneuvers, and a driver successfully does so, then the police have no probable cause for search.
Some years ago there was a case involving a sobriety checkpoint in Alliance, Nebraska. A woman who had had too much to drink saw it in the road ahead, did a legal U-turn to avoid it, was pursued by the Nebraska State Patrol, was found with a BAC in excess of the legal limit, and was convicted of DUI. The Nebraska Supreme Court overturned her conviction on the basis that the police did not have probable cause to test her for DUI.
This said, I still think creating unadvertised false checkpoints is a questionable tactic because it
looks like entrapment, even when it fails to meet the legal criteria for that.
Notwithstanding what Kphoger says about advertising a false checkpoint north of Wichita and then setting up the real checkpoint for traffic turning around, the more usual tactic in this metro area is to advertise the location and operating hours of a sobriety checkpoint on TV and in the Wichita
Eagle well in advance. There is no legal obligation to do this since prior advertisement in the mass media does not affect the validity of checkpoint busts. The real purpose is to cut the offenders off at the knee in terms of public relations: the public is supposed to think, "Not only were these people breaking the law, they were too stupid to avoid a checkpoint that was advertised well in advance." If people can flatter themselves that they are intelligent and street-wise enough to avoid getting busted by tactics like this, they are less likely to oppose them.
Quote from: Brandon on July 04, 2013, 12:26:07 PMOh goody, that means the person who is using that exit to get back to the exit he/she missed is suddenly under "probable cause" of transporting drugs.
Quote from: Steve on July 04, 2013, 12:14:09 PMSo yeah, probable cause would be "you exited when you saw the sign." They couldn't have it on the highway itself, because then there would be no cause to search your vehicle.
Actually, no. It is legal to use a highway exit to turn around--no reason or justification needs to be given. The legally sound way would be to operate it as an ordinary checkpoint, where probable cause for search is developed either through plain evidence of illegal conduct (open container in the vehicle, alcohol smell on driver's breath, etc.) or prior illegal activity (contravening traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint). The sneaky thing is that by being deceptive about the location of the checkpoint (which they are legally allowed to do), the police raise the percentage of vehicles travelling toward the checkpoint that are likely to be involved in illegal activity, since the possibility of delay isn't usually a sufficient reason for law-abiding drivers to go to the trouble of a detour.
The mere act of exiting the highway does not rise to the level of probable cause. That would imply a mere suspicion; however, I don't see probable cause being determined. As posted the driver would need to make some other type of illegal movement in order to develop probable cause. However, I heard that in Kansas that this may not be the case. I see that the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled on this issue as many other states. So what is going on in Kansas?
I now seem to recall that a police officer with the Metropolitan Nashville & Davidson County Police Department (Metro Police) was busted in Kansas with dope doing this same thing. He was returning with his spouse on his honeymoon from CA back to Nashville and he was carrying dope. He exited I-70 and through the dope out of the window. Turns out an unmarked car saw what he did and made the stop. He was arrested and then fired upon his return to Nashville. Littering would be probable cause to stop the vehicle, especially if the litter happens to be cannabis.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 04, 2013, 12:54:45 PMThe mere act of exiting the highway does not rise to the level of probable cause. That would imply a mere suspicion; however, I don't see probable cause being determined. As posted the driver would need to make some other type of illegal movement in order to develop probable cause. However, I heard that in Kansas that this may not be the case. I see that the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled on this issue as many other states. So what is going on in Kansas?
I am not aware that the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled differently where such searches are concerned. It did rule earlier in 2013 that field sobriety tests do not exonerate (in other words, the officer does not lose reasonable suspicion even if you successfully walk toe-to-heel in a straight line, recite the alphabet backwards, etc.). Kansas is also not a good state to try to have a breath test thrown out on the grounds that you were told you could not refuse it.
The US Supreme Court ruling that states DUI checkpoints are constitutional was laid down in 1990 in
Michigan v. Sitz, and Kansas is not one of the twelve states (AK, ID, IA, MI, MN, MT, OR, RI, TX, WA, WI, and WY) in which they cannot be carried out owing to lack of legal authority, adverse court rulings, etc.
QuoteI now seem to recall that a police officer with the Metropolitan Nashville & Davidson County Police Department (Metro Police) was busted in Kansas with dope doing this same thing. He was returning with his spouse on his honeymoon from CA back to Nashville and he was carrying dope. He exited I-70 and threw the dope out of the window. Turns out an unmarked car saw what he did and made the stop. He was arrested and then fired upon his return to Nashville. Littering would be probable cause to stop the vehicle, especially if the litter happens to be cannabis.
Littering would absolutely have been enough to develop probable cause. There is even a standard sign in Kansas (KDOT sign code KR5-11) advising motorists of fines ranging from $10 to $500 for littering highways.
In regard to drug checkpoints, it seems that the US Supreme Court has ruled they are unconstitutional (in 2000 in
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond). So falsely advertising a drug checkpoint with a view toward encouraging drivers to act illegally to avoid the checkpoint is a way of doing an end run around this holding. (In addition to DUI checkpoints, the Supreme Court allows Border Patrol checkpoints under the
US v. Martinez-Fuerte decision. The
Edmond case laid down a "special needs" test for checkpoints--they cannot be set up with detection of ordinary criminal wrongdoing as the primary purpose.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 04, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 04, 2013, 12:54:45 PMThe mere act of exiting the highway does not rise to the level of probable cause. That would imply a mere suspicion; however, I don't see probable cause being determined. As posted the driver would need to make some other type of illegal movement in order to develop probable cause. However, I heard that in Kansas that this may not be the case. I see that the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled on this issue as many other states. So what is going on in Kansas?
I am not aware that the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled differently where such searches are concerned. It did rule earlier in 2013 that field sobriety tests do not exonerate (in other words, the officer does not lose reasonable suspicion even if you successfully walk toe-to-heel in a straight line, recite the alphabet backwards, etc.). Kansas is also not a good state to try to have a breath test thrown out on the grounds that you were told you could not refuse it.
The US Supreme Court ruling that states DUI checkpoints are constitutional was laid down in 1990 in Michigan v. Sitz, and Kansas is not one of the twelve states (AK, ID, IA, MI, MN, MT, OR, RI, TX, WA, WI, and WY) in which they cannot be carried out owing to lack of legal authority, adverse court rulings, etc.
QuoteI now seem to recall that a police officer with the Metropolitan Nashville & Davidson County Police Department (Metro Police) was busted in Kansas with dope doing this same thing. He was returning with his spouse on his honeymoon from CA back to Nashville and he was carrying dope. He exited I-70 and threw the dope out of the window. Turns out an unmarked car saw what he did and made the stop. He was arrested and then fired upon his return to Nashville. Littering would be probable cause to stop the vehicle, especially if the litter happens to be cannabis.
Littering would absolutely have been enough to develop probable cause. There is even a standard sign in Kansas (KDOT sign code KR5-11) advising motorists of fines ranging from $10 to $500 for littering highways.
In regard to drug checkpoints, it seems that the US Supreme Court has ruled they are unconstitutional (in 2000 in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond). So falsely advertising a drug checkpoint with a view toward encouraging drivers to act illegally to avoid the checkpoint is a way of doing an end run around this holding. (In addition to DUI checkpoints, the Supreme Court allows Border Patrol checkpoints under the US v. Martinez-Fuerte decision. The Edmond case laid down a "special needs" test for checkpoints--they cannot be set up with detection of ordinary criminal wrongdoing as the primary purpose.)
It is interesting to note that even though the DUI checkpoint case was brought out of MI and found to be constitutional, MI has since made them illegal.
I wholeheartedly agree that if the police pulled someone over for making a *legal* u-turn or driving maneuver based on a checkpoint sign, then that would be rights violation and actionable in court.
Having participated in DUI checkpoints in the past, the way they typically work is that they're advertised in advance and then you can only choose the vehicles on a totally random basis. For example, pulling off every sixth car or something like that. Very often the press and members of the public were invited to watch the event.
Contrary to popular belief, the areas and times chosen were not based on any particular criteria other than being somewhere where the stops could be done in a safe and efficient manner. The total time taken per vehicle is generally under 30 seconds.
I'm certainly not taking a side as to whether or not states should conduct them, but I am trying to shed a little light for the "all cops lie" folks. They don't.
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>
I reported the above. Does that count as irony?
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?
Quote from: thenetwork on July 04, 2013, 02:59:04 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: kphoger on July 04, 2013, 05:26:57 PMIf 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 (http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/ConsenttoEnterorSearchbyDeception.pdf/download) 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 (http://www.aele.org/consent.html) lays out some of the factors that are considered. A "Know your rights" blurb (http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/more-us-law/know-rights-searched-warrant) also lays out some of the exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement for a search warrant.
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 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.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 04, 2013, 09:13:13 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Steve on July 04, 2013, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Quote from: thenetwork on July 04, 2013, 02:59:04 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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?
Quote from: bugo on July 03, 2013, 08:25:05 PM
The bottom line is by placing these signs, the government is lying to you, which is always wrong and immoral.
+1
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 04, 2013, 02:59:04 PMIf you don't like it, then just IGNORE it.
Your government thanks you for helping it do, well, whatever it wants.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PMThe 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.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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?
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 05, 2013, 11:37:56 AM
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.
Quote from: bugo on July 05, 2013, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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?
Quote from: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 05:20:24 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblu.stb.s-msn.com%2Fi%2F77%2F2b6e6266c2f6a5e39354a5846e6f86%2F_h473_w840_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg&hash=5582487fedbf4b2dcd091c487ebcb30aba9564c9)
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?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2013, 06:45:00 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 05:59:25 PM
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.
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:24:45 AM
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2013, 06:45:00 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 05:59:25 PM
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.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 04, 2013, 02:59:04 PM
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.
Quote from: kkt on July 05, 2013, 01:11:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2013, 12:10:02 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 05, 2013, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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?
It's happened to me. Is that enough proof?
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:13:02 AM
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?
I-271 along with I-480 make up the Outerbelt. The Outerbelt bypasses downtown Cleveland (an I-90 alternative).
Quote from: sandwalk on July 06, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:13:02 AM
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?
I-271 along with I-480 make up the Outerbelt. The Outerbelt bypasses downtown Cleveland (an I-90 alternative).
This reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Federal Highway Administration and Interstate 355. The FHWA originally wanted to name I-355 as I-455 since its policy in the late-1980's stated that an auxiliary highway with termini at two different two-digit interstates qualified as a bypass (in other words, such an auxiliary highway needed not begin and end at the same parent highway). Most 1988 maps label 355 as 455 between I-290 and I-55.
I assume that similar logic is applied here as many states (not including Illinois I presume) consider even-numbered three-digit auxiliary highways as "bypasses" so long as their termini are both interstate highways.
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:13:02 AM
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?
This kinda reminds me of I-229 here in Sioux Falls, but on a much larger scale. I-229's southern terminus is I-29, and its northern terminus with I-90. It completely fails as a bypass because traffic on I-229 is often much worse than that on I-29 and it would take much, much longer to take I-229/I-90 to bypass Sioux Falls than it would be to just take I-29. It would make a bit more sense if they would extend I-229 west along I-90 to its interchange with I-29 (kinda like they did with I-680 in Iowa,
but not completely), but it's still definitively not a bypass.
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 07, 2013, 12:44:38 AM
Quote from: sandwalk on July 06, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:13:02 AM
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?
I-271 along with I-480 make up the Outerbelt. The Outerbelt bypasses downtown Cleveland (an I-90 alternative).
This reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Federal Highway Administration and Interstate 355. The FHWA originally wanted to name I-355 as I-455 since its policy in the late-1980's stated that an auxiliary highway with termini at two different two-digit interstates qualified as a bypass (in other words, such an auxiliary highway needed not begin and end at the same parent highway). Most 1988 maps label 355 as 455 between I-290 and I-55.
I assume that similar logic is applied here as many states (not including Illinois I presume) consider even-numbered three-digit auxiliary highways as "bypasses" so long as their termini are both interstate highways.
Illinois (IDOT and ISTHA) seems unique in that they consider that an even 3di must reconnect to its parent. The only even 3di that goes past its parent in the state is I-255, and that's just to finish the loop (I-255/270). Everything else meets its parent even with a concurrency.
I-280: concurrent with I-74 to meet I-80.
I-294: concurrent with I-80 to meet I-94.
Even if the 3di ends at another interstate, if it does not reconnect with its parent, it gets an odd first number.
I-155: ends at I-74.
I-355: ends at I-80 and I-290.
I'd guess there is some friction between IDOT/ISTHA and FHWA on this.
The Maine State Police did this a few years ago when Phish was playing at Limestone AFB. People saw the sign, threw their bags out the window, and the staties rounded em up like cattle.
Quote from: Steve on July 06, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2013, 12:10:02 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 05, 2013, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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?
It's happened to me. Is that enough proof?
And same here. For taking photographs of bridges in New York City. For being a terrorist.
Well all this talking and now a video of Youtube pops up from a few days ago out in Murfreesboro, TN. The young man knew his rights; however, the officers still persisted and then summoned a K-9.
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Ignorance? How? If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, if they search it and find nothing illegal, then you're not in any trouble.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 07, 2013, 09:49:48 PM
Well all this talking and now a video of Youtube pops up from a few days ago out in Murfreesboro, TN. The young man knew his rights; however, the officers still persisted and then summoned a K-9.
I hope he got all of their names and badge numbers and is preparing a case to sue the living shit out of each and every one of these officers as well as the department to which they belong. I sure as hell would. What these officers did is illegal and wrong.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:36:55 AMIgnorance? How? If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, if they search it and find nothing illegal, then you're not in any trouble.
Not necessarily. They may find nothing illegal, and then say they did (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Khasin-cr_final_final.pdf). Unlike the case in other countries where police are not allowed to use deception in custodial interrogations, in most US jurisdictions deception is allowed as long as it does not create an unreasonable risk that an innocent person would falsely confess (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272659). The voluntariness criterion applies here to confessions given following a waiver of Miranda rights in much the same way it does to consent to search.
Make no mistake. In this country the police are allowed to lie to you and there is a large segment of popular and professional opinion that accepts this as right and proper, the disturbingly high percentage of innocents jailed on false confessions being written off as a cost of doing business.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Ignorance? How? If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, if they search it and find nothing illegal, then you're not in any trouble.
You're so naive sometimes.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/bart-hinkle/hinkle-commit-any-felonies-lately/article_58344fc1-7d4f-584a-8d16-36a1b1f2cdc0.html
Quote from: bugo on July 08, 2013, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Ignorance? How? If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, if they search it and find nothing illegal, then you're not in any trouble.
You're so naive sometimes.
Well, if the cops search my vehicle, they are not going to find any illegal drugs, they aren't going to find any firearms or deadly weapons, they aren't going to find any open containers of alcohol, no stolen property, or anything else that I shouldn't have.
If asked, I would ask what probable cause they had and then would probably refuse to consent and ask to be allowed to go on my way if they are not detaining me for any reason.
Quote from: Brandon on July 07, 2013, 06:55:21 AM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 07, 2013, 12:44:38 AM
Quote from: sandwalk on July 06, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:13:02 AM
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?
I-271 along with I-480 make up the Outerbelt. The Outerbelt bypasses downtown Cleveland (an I-90 alternative).
This reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Federal Highway Administration and Interstate 355. The FHWA originally wanted to name I-355 as I-455 since its policy in the late-1980's stated that an auxiliary highway with termini at two different two-digit interstates qualified as a bypass (in other words, such an auxiliary highway needed not begin and end at the same parent highway). Most 1988 maps label 355 as 455 between I-290 and I-55.
I assume that similar logic is applied here as many states (not including Illinois I presume) consider even-numbered three-digit auxiliary highways as "bypasses" so long as their termini are both interstate highways.
Illinois (IDOT and ISTHA) seems unique in that they consider that an even 3di must reconnect to its parent. The only even 3di that goes past its parent in the state is I-255, and that's just to finish the loop (I-255/270). Everything else meets its parent even with a concurrency.
I-280: concurrent with I-74 to meet I-80.
I-294: concurrent with I-80 to meet I-94.
Even if the 3di ends at another interstate, if it does not reconnect with its parent, it gets an odd first number.
I-155: ends at I-74.
I-355: ends at I-80 and I-290.
I'd guess there is some friction between IDOT/ISTHA and FHWA on this.
In the strictest definition of a "bypass," an even 3di auxiliary highway shouldn't need to intersect twice with the same 2di parent highway. In the strictest definition of a "bypass", I-355 is more than likely a "bypass", especially since they extended it south of I-55 to I-80 back in late-2007. I'd almost support renaming it I-380 (or I-480 if it suits the FHWA haha). The concept of a "spur" in two directions (north and south of I-55) seems pretty abstract to me. I can understand the logic (to an extent), but in most other states, it would be considered a "bypass" and more than likely named I-455.
Quote from: Brandon on July 08, 2013, 12:50:11 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 07, 2013, 09:49:48 PM
Well all this talking and now a video of Youtube pops up from a few days ago out in Murfreesboro, TN. The young man knew his rights; however, the officers still persisted and then summoned a K-9.
I hope he got all of their names and badge numbers and is preparing a case to sue the living shit out of each and every one of these officers as well as the department to which they belong. I sure as hell would. What these officers did is illegal and wrong.
From what I have read in the news he did get all of their information. The deputy did somewhat go over his bounds. However, if the K9 deputy did initiate a false hit then that is a big problem. The deputy played into the guy's hands and charged him with contempt of cop. That is when an officer gets worked up about something and has nothing on someone and tries everything in the book. The deputy was out of bounds on this one; however, not necessarily out of the law. I would need to see the unedited version to be more certain.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 08, 2013, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
No firearms? :wow:
KY is an open carry and shall issue permit state too.
Ignorance? How? If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, if they search it and find nothing illegal, then you're not in any trouble.
You're so naive sometimes.
Well, if the cops search my vehicle, they are not going to find any illegal drugs, they aren't going to find any firearms or deadly weapons, they aren't going to find any open containers of alcohol, no stolen property, or anything else that I shouldn't have.
If asked, I would ask what probable cause they had and then would probably refuse to consent and ask to be allowed to go on my way if they are not detaining me for any reason.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:28:44 PM
If asked, I would ask what probable cause they had and then would probably refuse to consent and ask to be allowed to go on my way if they are not detaining me for any reason.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/
Quote from: SP Cook on July 09, 2013, 06:03:54 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:28:44 PM
If asked, I would ask what probable cause they had and then would probably refuse to consent and ask to be allowed to go on my way if they are not detaining me for any reason.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/
Prior to 2013, the last Third Amendment lawsuit was filed in the late-1700's.
This seems more like an Eminent Domain/Due Process issue, which is the Fifth Amendment.
They are using the Third Amendment to showboat the case; however, I bet that they have the Fourth and Fifth Amemdments in the arguements. I heard from that there may have actually been a warrant involved in that situation; however, there was some heavy handiness afoot and early retirements have already come out of it.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 08, 2013, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 06, 2013, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
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.
Ignorance? How? If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, if they search it and find nothing illegal, then you're not in any trouble.
You're so naive sometimes.
Well, if the cops search my vehicle, they are not going to find any illegal drugs, they aren't going to find any firearms or deadly weapons, they aren't going to find any open containers of alcohol, no stolen property, or anything else that I shouldn't have.
If asked, I would ask what probable cause they had and then would probably refuse to consent and ask to be allowed to go on my way if they are not detaining me for any reason.
But what if they destroyed your car interior? What if they planted drugs on you? It could happen to you too.
Quote from: bugo on July 11, 2013, 08:50:46 AM
But what if they destroyed your car interior?
Truthfully, they couldn't trash it much worse than it already is.
Quote from: bugo on July 11, 2013, 08:50:46 AMWhat if they planted drugs on you?
Paranoid much?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2013, 10:26:07 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 11, 2013, 08:50:46 AM
But what if they destroyed your car interior?
Truthfully, they couldn't trash it much worse than it already is.
Quote from: bugo on July 11, 2013, 08:50:46 AMWhat if they planted drugs on you?
Paranoid much?
It's not paranoia if it happens. Quit being so fucking naive and join the real world. I know you're not a stupid man, so quit having stupid opinions.
Quote from: bugo on July 11, 2013, 10:36:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2013, 10:26:07 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 11, 2013, 08:50:46 AMWhat if they planted drugs on you?
Paranoid much?
It's not paranoia if it happens. Quit being so fucking naive and join the real world. I know you're not a stupid man, so quit having stupid opinions.
It's borderline paranoia if it happens so incredibly little that you can live in reasonable certainty that it won't happen to you. In a similar way, people who are deathly afraid to fly aren't paranoid, but they're still being unreasonable–the argument "hey, it happens" notwithstanding. Get off your high horse: some people actually trust police officers.
And, yes, I've had officers search my car for drugs and contraband before. It happens every so often when we drive to México–by US Border Patrol agents, by the Federales, by the Mexican army. Sometimes they just look through your window, sometimes they have you pop the trunk, sometimes they have everybody get out of the car, and sometimes you get to open up every piece of luggage you have with you and watch them poke around through your friends' underwear. Do I worry they're planting drugs? No. Does that make me naïve or stupid? No. It makes me just like the other thousands upon thousands of other people who have no problem with it.
Quote from: kphoger on July 11, 2013, 12:08:05 PMAnd, yes, I've had officers search my car for drugs and contraband before. It happens every so often when we drive to México–by US Border Patrol agents, by the Federales, by the Mexican army. Sometimes they just look through your window, sometimes they have you pop the trunk, sometimes they have everybody get out of the car, and sometimes you get to open up every piece of luggage you have with you and watch them poke around through your friends' underwear. Do I worry they're planting drugs? No. Does that make me naïve or stupid? No. It makes me just like the other thousands upon thousands of other people who have no problem with it.
Those are dragnet-type searches which are not based on specific suspicion and, for a law-abiding person, are more of a hassle than anything else. It is qualitatively very different to be under suspicion by the police as a specific person of interest and that is when a person has to be very careful, even if he or she trusts the police not to do anything overtly illegal like planting evidence.
But isn't that what we're talking about? Isn't a DUI checkpoint a dragnet-type search?
Quote from: kphoger on July 11, 2013, 12:52:52 PMBut isn't that what we're talking about?
Not quite.
QuoteIsn't a DUI checkpoint a dragnet-type search?
Yes, it is, and it is permitted by the Supreme Court on that basis (
Michigan v. Sitz). Similarly, Border Patrol checkpoints for illegal immigrants are dragnet-type operations and are also permitted by the Supreme Court on that basis (
US v. Martinez-Fuerte). And, in Mexico, drug and weapons checkpoints are dragnets and in practice operate very similarly to DUI and border checkpoints in the US. (I don't know what the legal position is in Mexico in regards to search, but the reality is that for the Mexican military and law enforcement personnel manning them, the traffic passing through is fully random and the law-abiding citizens massively outnumber the criminals.)
In the US, drug checkpoints are a different kind of animal altogether. The Supreme Court does not allow them to be run as dragnets. This means that law enforcement agencies wishing to run them have to get around this unfavorable legal position by using techniques which ensure that the traffic passing through is not randomly selected. In the Ohio case, for example, the only traffic that should pass through the interception area consists of drivers who have previously made an illegal maneuver in an attempt to avoid it. That by itself escalates the status of every person passing through the checkpoint to that of a person of interest in a criminal investigation.
An important and thoughtful book:
"Rise Of The Warrior Cop: The Militarization Of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko
It wasn't always this way, and we never should have let it happen.
Good book.