Requiring Probable Cause? How Silly
Via Jay J. Hector, a story in the Freep about Flint drug stops. Bill Laitner writes:
Motorists driving on expressways around Flint are getting surprised by a stunning tactic that the Genesee County sheriff has been using to fight the flow of illegal drugs -- one that legal experts said will not withstand a court challenge.At least seven times this month, including Tuesday, motorists have said they have seen a pickup towing a large sign on I-69 or U.S.-23 that depicts the sheriff's badge and warns: "Sheriff narcotics check point, 1 mile ahead -- drug dog in use."
The checkpoints are part of a broad sweep for drugs that Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell and his self-titled Sheriff's Posse said are needed, calling Flint a crossroads of drug dealing because nearly a half-dozen major roads and expressways pass in and around the city. Pickell said he decided to try checkpoints when he learned that drug shipments might be passing through Flint in tractor-trailers with false compartments.
"We're doing everything by the book," Genesee County Undersheriff Christopher Swanson said. "We think there's major loads (of drugs) coming through here from all over, every day. And this is one of the tools we use -- narcotics checkpoints."
Once again, as at the airports, treating everyone as a criminal is starting to pass for meaningful, targeted investigation. It is unconstitutional and unacceptable and it is what we get for going quietly as our rights are yanked from us at the airport and elsewhere.
The nerve of those guys.
Trying to kill what little economic activity Michigan has left.
Isabel1130 at October 21, 2011 12:47 PM
Interesting.
If I remember correctly, the Michigan Supreme Court initially declared the use of DUI checkpoints illegal, and were eventually overturned by SCOTUS.
FWIW, I don't see how any sort of checkpoint is legal. Did we lose a war?
jdub at October 21, 2011 12:51 PM
Completely illegal: http://flexyourrights.org/faq/162
But that hasn't stopped the TSA or CBP or....
sharog at October 21, 2011 12:52 PM
Do we need to consider drug legalization, if only to put a check on government police powers?
Paul Freitas at October 21, 2011 1:00 PM
If they give warning like that then the SCOTUS has ruled that it does not violate the US constitution. Some states have constitutions that would make that illegal though.
The Former Banker at October 21, 2011 5:23 PM
Isabel for the win!
Seriously, I think the checkpoints are totally wrong, but you can't swing a dead cat in Flint and not hit someone who is holding.
They should have plenty of jail fodder just from their daily routine.
Daghain at October 21, 2011 6:19 PM
jdub is right to ask. We are losing a war.
Haakon Dahl at October 21, 2011 7:04 PM
If you are not PC that is PC.
The Politically Correct don't ask why am I being searched. If you ask "Why am I being searched?" that is Probable Cause that you have something to hide. Yes I have something to hide -- my whole life.
While the right to privacy is not in the U.S. Constitution, it is implied.
My traveling around my local area or from anywhere to anywhere does not give you probable cause that I'm guilty. That is also not a reason to stop and search me.
We are so fucked.
Jim P. at October 21, 2011 9:36 PM
Well, I have to agree with Jim. There's doom in the air. SCOTUS will not uphold our rights. After the appalling Kelo decision, I wouldn't trust this SCOTUS to judge a dog show.
Patrick at October 21, 2011 10:25 PM
Hmm, a post about overreaching cops looking for drugs and a spammer offering links to Bogota apartments...
I agree we're losing the war on civil rights thanks to the war on drugs. I'm also thinking the only thing that will stop "law enforcement" run amok is violence. A violence many in government/police might actually want given the militarization of police.
Sio at October 21, 2011 10:41 PM
I am fervently hoping that one of the people stopped at these bogus checkpoints will file a 1983 suit and win big.
JC at October 22, 2011 6:47 AM
*Many* years ago I saw a sign in the median strip on I-95 in North Carolina that read something like "Drug Checkpoint Ahead." I thought it was absurd since the volume of traffic made stopping cars for drug checks a fool's errand.
Than I realized that there was some method in the madness. The cops were waiting off the next exit at which there was no gas station or convenience store. Any out of state car coming off the highway at that exit was most like carrying a remarkably stupid driver and drugs.
I kept driving.
BlogDog at October 22, 2011 8:04 AM
So now Sheriff Numbnutz is shutting down FREEWAYS to do inspections for drugs? This stuff is getting out of hand.
Legalize drugs, make sure people are held responsible for their criminal acts while high, and all this crap stops, at least until they find some other excuse.
mpetrie98 at October 22, 2011 8:38 AM
Around here it was cute tricks like the on ramps for freeways, or the busiest of local roads during fairly busy traffic periods. The Gestapo - I mean the Town of DeWitt police - stopped when somebody realized that we could vote yes on police department consolidation, save money, and get a little less personalized service from the local police department...
For the record, the local cops do a good job and have the support of the taxpayers. That's why it was surprising and disappointing that the idea of mass traffic stops ever was approved. From what I saw of the reports in the paper, they only netted a few inspection/seat belt violations but cost everyone who ran into them about a quarter of an hour.
Somebody, somewhere is always doing something illegal, immoral or stupid. That doesn't mean society can stop them at any cost.
Even the greens ought to be against the checkpoints. A line of stopped cars gets zero mpg. Elections do mean something if you pay attention.
MarkD at October 23, 2011 6:07 AM
"Legalize drugs, make sure people are held responsible for their criminal acts while high, and all this crap stops, at least until they find some other excuse."
I know you know this is way too simple. How can a person be held responsible for actions which kill or displace hundreds of people?
We transport millions of tons of hazmat, which can do this, daily to feed manufacturing plants. You must (yes, the word is must) enable some professions to exclude recreational use of the drugs so legalized, just as alcohol is today.
And that means testing and standards.
By the way, some football players in the SEC have just been suspended for the use of "spice", a marijuana substitute said to have many of the same effects. Wonder what quality controls there are on that stuff?
Radwaste at October 23, 2011 3:53 PM
Is this sort of like the bazillion sex slaves we were supposed to find after funding task forces to find them?
Except we didn't - not that trafficking in the US isn't a problem, but the hysterically overinflated numbers (300,000 per year! Or more! Aaah!) just weren't accurate.
Choika at October 23, 2011 4:58 PM
You must (yes, the word is must) enable some professions to exclude recreational use of the drugs so legalized, just as alcohol is today.
Who ever said that employers can't make drug use cause for termination or refusal to hire?
WayneB at October 23, 2011 8:21 PM
Leave a comment