EFaD ping...
Posted on 10/21/2011 6:05:44 PM PDT by bamahead
Genesee County, Michigan Sheriff Robert Pickell is not concerned about the constitutionality of his new method of keeping Flint free of illegal drugs. Fourth Amendment fans, medical marijuana patients, and jumpy motorists are less sure.
According to the Detroit Free Press:
At least seven times [in October] 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 [Pickell] and his self-titled "Sheriff's Posse" said are needed, calling Flint a crossroads of drug dealing ... Pickell said he decided to try checkpoints when he learned that drug shipments might be passing through Flint in tractor-trailers with false compartments.
After some outcry, Pickell's posse have begun making these checkpoints more sporadic. Pickell also admits to using drivers' reactions - say, nervous illegal Uturns- to the warnings as a pretext for pulling them over anyway.
--SNIP--
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that DUI checkpoints were illegal, but the U.S. Court leaves the matter up to the states, under certain conditions. And:
Based on a case out of Indianapolis, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2000 that narcotics checkpoints where everyone gets stopped on a public road are not legal and violate Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, professor David Moran at the University of Michigan Law School said.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Back roads are generally where checkpoints are set up in Alabama.
They would have had to be to catch me. I can drive from one side of the county to the other and only cross pavement about 3 times.
The government is far too big. Far to powerful.
I want small government.
If you are concerned with Illegals as Arpio is, the solution is simple.
Don’t provided free education to illegal immigrants. Don’t allow them to drive. Don’t allow them to own property. Don’t allow them to utilize free emergency room services.
Then no problem with the illegal immigrants. Then no need for the anti-4th amendment checkpoints. No need for law enforcement all across this country using petty traffic laws to subvert the 4th amendment.
I believe it is incompatible with small government conservatism to vote at the local level to have very powerful cities, awash in full time law enforcement and broad discretionary powers to intervene in non criminal activities.
It is wrong to use traffic citations to fund the municipal court system. Just make it smaller and make it live within it’s means. Why are the nicest buildings in most towns the municipal buildings? I operate a 2.5 million dollar a year business out of a 6000 square foot metal building. My office is a trailer. I don’t have “nice digs” like the Police, Fire, Mayor, city council. I earn my money. I don’t use municipal power to steal it from citizens at the point of a gun in the dubious name of that highly venerated goddess, “safety”.
On what planet?
DWI checkpoints have been around for years. Though I do believe it’s against the constitution. But not many care about that anymore.
At least when Prohibition of Alcohol was passed, they were honest about it and amended the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it empower the Feds to regulate what people choose to consume, and once upon a time the Feds were honest about it and changed the Constitution to empower them to do it.
Federal drug laws, ALL OF THEM INCLUDING THE FDA, are unconstitutional. Keeping everyone safe and sober are NOT enumerated powers.
How you “feel” about it, or what you “believe” is correct does not matter.
This short circuiting of the correct process has led to legislation without representation from unaccountable bureaucrats issuing diktats. The EPA, DEA, and BATFE are PRIME EXAMPLES of this behavior.
By the way, these three turds in the punchbowl were created by an electable, liberal Republican named Nixon.
Drivin' a dirt road, drinking a few beers, listening to the Yankee game and twisting everything Suzyn Waldman says into something dirty ... that's as good as it gets for me.
No need to follow any obsolete piece of paper when the nation's at WAR.
Even conservatives like George W. Bush realized that.
(Well he claimed to be a conservative, didn't he? Of the compassionate variety?)
</sarc>
Arpaio should be head of the INS, for sure. He uses probable cause.
Pickell should be tarred, feathered and ridden out of the USA on a cactus trunk for laziness and fee grabbing.
Only legal U.S. citizens to be searched w/o warrant.
Illegals carrying whatever to be waived thru the check points.
Islamics too.
Are all of the Freepers on this thread really so stupid?
I know the reporter is but you Freepers really surprise me.
These signs have been used for years.
Park this sign about 1/4 mile before a rest area or remote exit.
Have your deputies in the rest area or remote exit ready to inspect anyone suspicious exiting.
Get it? The sign says 1 mile to an inspection station and the rest area or remote exit is just before that.
The fact that you are trying to avoid the inspection area raises probable cause.
EFaD ping...
In San Francisco, the highest concentration of Latinos is in the Mission District —at most times other races together are maybe 20% of the pop.
At Cinqo de Mayo the cops ended up pulling over soooo many people for drunk driving, with sooo many cars impounded that the Diversity Honchos called up:
They made such a stink about it that we STILL have sobriety checkpoints, sure, but NOT FOR CINQO DE DRINKO.
Nice, huh?
For people who SHOULD be here we have them, but for illegal strangers (and who think rather little of drinking and driving) there are NONE.
BTW: Did u know Cinqo de Mayo is a non-holiday MADE UP by Arizona booze distributors?
I’m serious.
PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY OR BECOMING A MONTHLY DONOR
PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO DONATE
We no longer have a constitution. Just a pretty piece of paper behind protective glass in the national archives.
It was a nice idea, though.
of what ???
To start with, maybe some one merely has to take a dump and that is why they pulled into a rest stop, it is a rest stop isn’t it? Secondly, probably cause is not mentioned in the constitution as a reason to search somenone’s person, vehicle or home. Probable cause is supposed to be used to obtain a search warrant. The judges who made the rulings that cops can use “probable cause” to search people without a warrant made unconstitutional rulings and we have been suffering for it every since.
Got love police that want to violate Constitutional Rights in order to enforce the law. (sarcasm off)
Just think about it for a minute. What’s next that’s going to justify a check point? You may agree in this situation, but THIS situation will be used as evidence of why they can do it in the future.
This is NOT good. This is what I expect in a police state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.