here we go again

[AMonger]

about 100 miles up the road from where I got stopped last, I'm driving down the road, minding my own business, and I see signs saying, "
drug checkpoint-- all vehicles subject to search." there were 4 police cruisers on the shoulder. I'm surprised I didn't get pulled over, driving a van with the signs covered up.

anybody wants to defend this?

 

[Brisco]

Nope.....if you're not carrying Drugs...you should have No Worrys whatsoever.

I'll repeat what Moot said in that other thread:

Apparently you have the good sense not to spew your hatred of law enforcement officers directly to their faces. So, a big 10-4 to you good buddy, hammer down the super slab and keep the shiny side up. Catch you on the flip-flop cupcake.

 

[zorry]

Won't defend it. What I have seen is that near an exit to nowhere. If someone gets freaked they'll jump off that exit. When they stop the vehicle and he doesn't have a rational reason to be taking THAT exit I guess they figure they have reasonable cause....is it right ? Hey, the bad guys are sneaky so the "good" guys are sneaky.

 

[AMonger]

Hitting quote isn't working. The quoted text isn't appearing.

so I shouldn't worry about being stopped and searched absent probable cause? because, you know, that constitution thing, the 1 bush called " just a god **** piece of paper" says they have to have a warrant to do that, one they got by swearing to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that I, personally, am guilty of something articulable.

I shouldn't worry about that, huh?

 

[chefdennis]

Michigan State Patrol was doing this on Telegraph Rd up Layoutshooters place a few yrs back...a judge through out every case that they brought to court because they DID NOT STOP EVERY CAR/TRUCK, but were random in the stops, and as was pointed out, they went after those that turned around to avoid the check point....

LE at its best... And i am sorry, the bs line of "if you have nothing to hide that you should just do it"..is just that bs.....

 

[Turtle]

Usually what they do with those drug checkpoint signs is put the signs up, and then watch for people doing stupid things, like making a U-turn on the Interstate to avoid the checkpoint, or other traffic violations like suddenly whipping off, without signalling, to an exit or into a rest area, or tossing contraband out the window. Mainly, the sign is used to invoke a panic response from someone who has drugs in the vehicle. If you see a sign saying “Drug Checkpoint Ahead”, just keep driving and don’t panic. If there’s a rest area following the sign, DO NOT pull into it. If you do, you’ll likely find yourself surrounded by drug-sniffing dogs. It's rather hilarious, actually.

 

[Pianoguy]

Wilson county TN does this with a little twist, not drug related but they will put prisoners on the median with shovels and rakes then sit on a side street, pull you over and write you up for failure to yield to pedestrians.

I don't know of many pedestrians that bring their own rakes and shovels to garden medians? And how many pedestrians where orange jumpsuits with a guy walking nearby with a shotgun?

Know why I stopped you? No, You didn't yield to those pedestrians back there in the median. My response was were they crossing the street there? How can they cross the street and trim grass at the same time, no grass in the road. ??

They had people pulled over everywhere and it was obvious they were looking for other things.

 

[AMonger]

Usually what they do with those drug checkpoint signs is put the signs up, and then watch for people doing stupid things, like making a U-turn on the Interstate to avoid the checkpoint, or other traffic violations like suddenly whipping off, without signalling, to an exit or into a rest area, or tossing contraband out the window. Mainly, the sign is used to invoke a panic response from someone who has drugs in the vehicle. If you see a sign saying “Drug Checkpoint Ahead”, just keep driving and don’t panic. If there’s a rest area following the sign, DO NOT pull into it. If you do, you’ll likely find yourself surrounded by drug-sniffing dogs. It's rather hilarious, actually.

There was a reversal in that ruling, too. Originally, the ruling said people are free to turn around and avoid the checkpoint, and it does not constitute probable cause to search, then somewhere along the line, that got changed. Same ol', same ol'. Government grows and freedom shrinks. Thanks, Reagan, for the War on the Bill of Rights, er, Drugs.

 

[Turtle]

Far as I know, it's always been illegal to do a u-turn on the Interstate.

 

[AMonger]

Far as I know, it's always been illegal to do a u-turn on the Interstate.

Well, yeah, on the interstate, though I saw a big truck do it once.

 

[Rocketman]

This one should be in the soapbox as well...obviously more about arguing political views than the discussion of expediter topics.

 

[Turtle]

Road checkpoints are certainly expediter topics. Just because someone also has a political comment about the subject doesn't automatically make it destined for the Soapbox. Since this entire industry is a regulated industry, some politics and legal discussions are naturally going to enter into the discussions.

Ironically, your comment here is the most political comment in this thread - it's opinion, and it tries to tell authority which methods and tactics to use to formulate and apply policy.

 

[Rocketman]

Road checkpoints are certainly expediter topics. Just because someone also has a political comment about the subject doesn't automatically make it destined for the Soapbox. Since this entire industry is a regulated industry, some politics and legal discussions are naturally going to enter into the discussions.

Ironically, your comment here is the most political comment in this thread - it's opinion, and it tries to tell authority which methods and tactics to use to formulate and apply policy.

Actually not trying to tell authority anything. In fact I dont consider authority much on an internet forum. My comment was to the OP who makes it pretty obvious in 90% of his threads that he wants to debate the validity of regulations and regulatory bodies.

But go ahead, debater #2? Call it as you see it.

 

[Turtle]

Actually not trying to tell authority anything.

Sorry. My bad. I got confused when you publicly stated that this thread belongs in the Soapbox, and didn't direct your comments to anyone in particular. I took it to be directed at anyone who is able to move the thread to the Soapbox. If it was intended solely for the OP, then a PM might have been a better method of communicating.

My comment was to the OP who makes it pretty obvious in 90% of his threads that he wants to debate the validity of regulations and regulatory bodies.

Ah. You might want to consider replying to the post, and not the poster, then. It tends to help keep things on-topic when people do that.

 

[LisaLouHoo]

about 100 miles up the road from where I got stopped last, I'm driving down the road, minding my own business, and I see signs saying, "
drug checkpoint-- all vehicles subject to search." there were 4 police cruisers on the shoulder. I'm surprised I didn't get pulled over, driving a van with the signs covered up.

anybody wants to defend this?

As already mentioned in this thread, suspicious activity after seeing the warning gets pulled over. Another note from my nephew the Clarkston, MI police officer: as a rule, the average drug runner is not the longhair, the shaved head, the tattooed and pierced in a van...but rather the one in dockers and polo shirt, clean cut appearance, driving a sedan. In an attempt to blend in with the rest of society. That made me think about the people I do know serving massive sentences in Walla Walla for drug trafficking: every one of them had the everyday clean cut appearance. I guess they didn't think about Officer Fido not caring how they look.


Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums