just passed a drug checkpoint on i70 all vehicles subject to search?

[kyleplusitunes]

driving down i70 right now, mm119 had orange signs saying drug checkpoint all vehicles subject to search, k9 in use.

this is off topic, but WTF is it legal? America?

if you're in the area this is going on right now, check it out

 

[Big Boy]

If the K9 picks up on something, they then would have probable cause to search, but otherwise they should not be able to without consent.

At least as far as I know.

 

[McX]

drug check point? so if you stop, and don't have any drugs, do they give them to you? it will never catch on. Roadblocks to me are a clear invasion of privacy, and assumed or presumed guilt- you have to prove otherwise. I'll stop at one if they offer free beer.

 

[mFonz77]

There is a really good thread either on here or Missouri Carry (now MSSA) somewhere...about the constitutionality or lack thereof of traffic checkpoints. Very well articulated opinions. If I find it I will try to post.

I think it basically boils down to, let's use the night before Thanksgiving (in MO at least that is a pretty big drinking night): Just because it is reasonable to assume that many are drinking and driving that night, there is no RAS that YOU, in your car, have been drinking.

Same w/ drugs: just because I-70 is a known drug artery for the nation, doesn't mean that YOU have drugs in your vehicle. BS if you ask me.

 

[LMTD]

I have HEARD the signs are used to get RAS, aka the check point does not actually exist they have an eye in the sky to identify vehicles that make u-turns after seeing the sign. I relay have no idea myself however I have seen the signs, but I have never been at one when the check point was going on.

 

[mark-in-texas]

I'm a pharmacy technician and had to go through one of those 'drug checkpoints' once. When the State Trooper walked up to my window, he asked 'Are you carrying any drugs?' I flashed my pharmacy (name witheld since I don't work there anymore) ID and said, 'No sir. Why, do you need some?' He chuckled and waved me on.

 

[heresyourdipstickjimmy]

I'd be interested to see how Grant v. Arizona impacts these kinds of searches since technically the dog would be conducting a search and the dog is registered as an Officer. At face value it would appear this would violate Grant v. Arizona as it would be a search of the vehicle without consent.

 

[glockdnloaded]

I've seen this on 70 quite a bit lately. Signs directing you off the road but no Leo directing traffic. People just pull off and follow the signs to the k9. Saw the same ploy used on a county rd in ks a couple months back. Just follow the sign to your free search and seizure.

 

[lancers]

I have HEARD the signs are used to get RAS, aka the check point does not actually exist they have an eye in the sky to identify vehicles that make u-turns after seeing the sign. I relay have no idea myself however I have seen the signs, but I have never been at one when the check point was going on.

That is probably what it was. The OP doesn't say if there was actually a checkpoint. I saw this once in IL. Signs were posted that a drug checkpoint was ahead, but there was nothing. I'm sure they were waiting in the bushes for people to pull over and toss out their drugs, thereby creating probable cause for the stop/arrest.

If I saw it again, I would probably stop and knock the signs down.

 

[Mike]

I recall an appellate case holding that drug search checkpoints were not allowed even under Sitz (holding DUI checkpoints were constitutional). Anyone recall somthing similar?

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

Fake "drug checkpoints"

Signs warning of "drug checkpoints" are false and intended to prompt people to either throw drugs out of their vehicles (likely in sight of waiting police officers or surveillence cameras) or take the next exit or rest stop, where there is likely a swarm of drug-sniffing dugs, who will go around your vehicle and signal "hits" and give the police their "probable cause" to search. Real "drug checkpoints" are not legally permitted and the legality of the fake checkpoints is dubious at best.

Click here for more info.

 

[WisconsinPI]

drug check point? so if you stop, and don't have any drugs, do they give them to you? it will never catch on. Roadblocks to me are a clear invasion of privacy, and assumed or presumed guilt- you have to prove otherwise. I'll stop at one if they offer free beer.

HA!

 

[butterfly83003]

I70 drug checkpoint

driving down i70 right now, mm119 had orange signs saying drug checkpoint all vehicles subject to search, k9 in use.

this is off topic, but WTF is it legal? America?

if you're in the area this is going on right now, check it out

I passed through this same checkpoint. The signs said DEA checkpoint ahead, Drug dogs in use. This was not fake. There were state troopers up ahead randomly stopping vehicles and searching. I believe this is unconstitutional of my 4th amendment rights. Is this really legal?

 

[MK]

The Supreme Court has ruled these roadblocks are unconstitutional in Indianapolis v. Edmond

quoted from a wikipedia article

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches, specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. Previous Supreme Court decisions had given the police power to create roadblocks for the purposes of border security (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte), and removing drunk drivers from the road (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz). This decision stated that the power was limited to situations in which the search was "designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement."

The Court drew a line on check point programs that followed Police v. Sitz (1990) "whose primary purpose" is "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing". The Court refused to "credit the 'general interest in crime control' as justification for a regime of suspicionless stops."

The opinion was delivered by Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined, and Justice Scalia joined as to part I.

Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissent

I am happy that the Supreme Court did what I feel is the right thing overall but I am very disturbed that some of the conservatives on the bench dissented. Like I try to remind people, both liberals and conservatives can be equal opportunity freedom killers. Where one group threatens some of our freedoms or what should be our freedoms, the other picks up the slack that the first group is neglecting to attack. That's why I trust Libertarians more so than either the Republicans or Democrats. They seem to be the party that is most liberty orientated at the individual and family levels.



Here's an article about an Illinois Sheriff who still uses the drug checkpoints despite knowing they are unconstitutional.

http://effinghamdailynews.com/local/x75194005/Drug-checkpoint-questionable

I guess they figure some people, especailly poor people, won't try to fight the charges and will cop plea deals. What needs to happen is for them to be sued over it I guess.

 

[ChiangShih]

Lol, these are fakes. Like others have said, the cops wait on the near by exits for anyone trying to avoid the check point. I ran into one of these in Kansas by Topeka awhile back on my way back from Denver. I had been driving all day and I saw the signs and thought "Man I have a GPS, I can avoid all that traffic and possibly an annoying search." Oops. As soon as I pulled off on the next exit, BAM swarmed by like 2 patrol cars and 2 SUVs. As soon as I saw the cop cars I told my wife to start changing the babies diaper when I pulled the car to a stop. When the officer approached I said something along the lines of "I saw the drug check point signs and I figured traffic would be pretty backed up, the baby needed a diaper change so I figured we'd best pull over and do that before getting back on the road."

Lol, long story short we were waved on past and there was no drug check point.

 

[Gunslinger]

The Supreme Court has ruled these roadblocks are unconstitutional in Indianapolis v. Edmond

quoted from a wikipedia article



I am happy that the Supreme Court did what I feel is the right thing overall but I am very disturbed that some of the conservatives on the bench dissented. Like I try to remind people, both liberals and conservatives can be equal opportunity freedom killers. Where one group threatens some of our freedoms or what should be our freedoms, the other picks up the slack that the first group is neglecting to attack. That's why I trust Libertarians more so than either the Republicans or Democrats. They seem to be the party that is most liberty orientated at the individual and family levels.



Here's an article about an Illinois Sheriff who still uses the drug checkpoints despite knowing they are unconstitutional.

http://effinghamdailynews.com/local/x75194005/Drug-checkpoint-questionable

I guess they figure some people, especailly poor people, won't try to fight the charges and will cop plea deals. What needs to happen is for them to be sued over it I guess.

Evidence is inadmissable: fruit of the poison tree. Would be excluded on preliminary motion at arraignment that a first year law student would make. This jackass is violating established law and the 4th Amendment. Lawsuit needed so he can shove his checkpoints up his ass. Gee, imagine this going on in the National Socialist Workers Paradise of IL.

 

[McX]

hmmmm, i didnt know your state bordered Mexico, sounds to me like these checkpoints are just another way to get you used to your rights being eroded;

sign zee papers old man............i cant............why not?...........because you have broken both my hands!

 

[MK]

When they use their signs of a drug checkpoint ahead and then set up at the only offramp before hand and also have a dog present, its pretty obvious that its still an illegal drug checkpoint. With the sign, with the police presence that is in an area ahead of that sign and with a drug sniffing dog on location (which an officer will more than likely have to testify the dog is there for that purpose), as well as multiple officers pulling over every car that chooses to use that off ramp, I just don't see how they are going to make any seized evidence stick against a good defense. Its obviously a drug checkpoint which has already been ruled as unconstitutional.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Lawsuit needed so he can shove his checkpoints up his ass.

See? This is why we should always call these things roadblocks. If he shoves one up his **s, it will hurt more.