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

[Zeffy]

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

[Brandon]

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

[NE2]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/126745/

[seicer]

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.

[oscar]

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. 

[corco]

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

[bugo]

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

[Alps]

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

FTFY

[Sykotyk]

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...

[bugo]

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.

[brianreynolds]

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.

[NE2]

Cops are allowed to lie to you. Never trust them.

[GeekJedi]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[mgk920]

I gave up on the Drug War™ back when I was in my mid-20s.  Repeal it already, OK?



Mike

[oscar]

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. 

[Alps]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[6a]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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 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.

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 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.)

[Avalanchez71]

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 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.

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 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.

[GeekJedi]

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.