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

[Alps]

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?

[sandwalk]

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).

[paleocon121171]

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.

[TCN7JM]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[seicer]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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. 

[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.

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

Not necessarily.  They may find nothing illegal, and then say they did.  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.  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.

[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.

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.

[SP Cook]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/bart-hinkle/hinkle-commit-any-felonies-lately/article_58344fc1-7d4f-584a-8d16-36a1b1f2cdc0.html

[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.

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.

[paleocon121171]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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?

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.

[SP Cook]

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/

[paleocon121171]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[kphoger]

handiness afoot

[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.

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.

[hbelkins]

But what if they destroyed your car interior?

Truthfully, they couldn't trash it much worse than it already is.

What if they planted drugs on you?

Paranoid much?

[bugo]

But what if they destroyed your car interior?

Truthfully, they couldn't trash it much worse than it already is.

What 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.

[kphoger]

What 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.