Flint Michigan: Illegal Search and Seizure

[svantevid]

Finally, someone that sees this as the OT thread that it is.

i agree, this should be moved to OT. just because there's a car in the OP doesn't mean it's car related.

[MidnightSpecial]

Dont facepalm me hippie and yes i read article dont care nothing wrong with any dui checkpoint in my book

The problem is using "what's the problem if you have nothing to hide" as a defense. Know and exercise your rights.

[2.0T_Convert]

You obviously didn't read what I said. The issue is that so many unconstitutional practices and laws go either unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged because people in this country cower to authority in the most bizarre way. I'm not an anti-authoritarian but I would expect that in situations where the legality of what the authority is pursuing is doubtful that people wouldn't just point fingers are call others mentally decrepit or deviant.

It's as though everyone is trying to curry favor with those at the top in anticipation of some sort of reward, even if they are far removed from the situation.

Why are you taking what I wrote as cowing before some unjust authority.

The way I see it....

- Certain substances are illegal.
- Transportation of said substances is also illegal.
- With reasonable cause police can search your vehicle.

As I already mentioned earlier police can use some pretty spartan grounds to search your home so I don't why the same shouldn't apply to motor vehicles especially when your do not own the ground upon which the vehicle is moving.

I see a pretty smart way to track down violators. Warn them and pester those who try to avoid the warning. I know how it works in this country and of course some Ron Paul fanatical anti-big government guy will make the U-turn just to avoid being part of the "abuse" he sees and he will likely make a huge stink when pulled over and rant on all his precious time that has just been wasted. Sucks for him but it could have easily avoided if he never made the U-turn to begin with. Even if pulled over it's not as if a quick walk around by a policy dog is that much trouble.

In areas where we indentify large amounts of drugs are transported I support the use of dogs.... The same way I support the use of dogs to sniff luggage if areas where people travel know as airports.

[Techun]

I hate people who are so willing to roll over and give up their rights

[MrRline]

To the comments about exercising your rights please America has become more a police state than it ever has before Atleast this one makes some sense and even DUI checkpoints make sense. I live in one of the worst DUI states in the country by far and i'm grateful to see cops on the side of the road on a Friday night doing this. I'd love to see this down here too because of the amount of illegal drugs that come in across the border of Mexico. Maybe rather than trying to attack this issue you should try to move to attack issues such as being frisked at the airport, extra security checks at airports, or the American patriot act which are far worse than a narcotics checkpoint by far. Cameras on the side of the road taking your picture, recording 24/7, the government telling you what you can and can't have these are way bigger concerns then a narcotics checkpoint imo.

[HerrGolf]

Even if pulled over it's not as if a quick walk around by a policy dog is that much trouble.

In areas where we indentify large amounts of drugs are transported I suppose the use of dogs.... The same way I suppose the use of dogs to sniff luggage if areas where people travel know as airports.

The dog in the airport is a good analogy. What I am concerned about is the potential for someone who is possessing an amount of the drug not intended for distribution being snagged this way. I would imagine that a drug dog can sense even a small amount and that will lead to people getting searched, having a life-destroying charge for some tiny amount of drugs, etc. Overzealous law enforcement also has the potential to destroy families and communities, especially ones which have already been marginalized, such as flint.

I primarily take issue with the way so many people uncritically and enthusiastically voice their support for a security measure based on a legally shaky application of authority.

[revbjeff]

Guess I'll have to take the long way to my dealer's pad.

[backseatdelete]

http://theawesomer.com/4th-amendment...t-shirt/73413/

[.LSinLV.]

How is using reasonable cause to search for illegal substances illegal.

The police can enter your home if they detect unreasonable electricity usage and witness other signs of a pot farm. Same applies to your car which as far as I know doesn't enjoy the same protected status as your home.

you don't know much as you would be WRONG.

my sister recently threw out a very high-profile case because the PC was NOT PC, and thus the police had no reason to stop the car and begin the search.....had they followed procedure or followed the law, they may have had a good collar.

instead the culprits were let go and the case dismissed.

[2.0T_Convert]

The dog in the airport is a good analogy. What I am concerned about is the potential for someone who is possessing an amount of the drug not intended for distribution being snagged this way. I would imagine that a drug dog can sense even a small amount and that will lead to people getting searched, having a life-destroying charge for some tiny amount of drugs, etc. Overzealous law enforcement also has the potential to destroy families and communities, especially ones which have already been marginalized, such as flint.

I primarily take issue with the way so many people uncritically and enthusiastically voice their support for a security measure based on a legally shaky application of authority.

I believe that is already easily handled.

As I stated earlier I would never carry enough on me to be considered part of the sales and distrubution process. I'm not sure but I believe carrying a certain amount of money and drugs can be used as grounds for charges on distrubtion or intent to sell. If it's a tiny ammout in a little bag the charges are lesser and may not even result in jail time. At that that's how it works in Connecticut

I feel no pite for anyone caught with $10,000 in cash and a freezer sized ziplock bag full of product

you don't know much as you would be WRONG.

my sister recently threw out a very high-profile case because the PC was NOT PC, and thus the police had no reason to stop the car and begin the search.....had they followed procedure or followed the law, they may have had a good collar.

instead the culprits were let go and the case dismissed.

Well that's the purpose of the courts now isn't it?

To define the law and how we respond. On another hand the case your sister threw out could end up in another court where a judge rules another way. In the MI case the police will continue with activity until someone ends up in court and the actions are clearly defined as violating something or another...

Which is why I don't get the anger here. This is the world working as intended. Police take action and eventually it may end up having to face the wraith of a court.

[czykvw]

Atleast they give you a 1 mile warning there, here in california, the sign telling you its a checkpoint is literally right next to the officer. So by then its obvious its too late to do anything.

[BRealistic]

...this sounds similar to a DUI checkpoint. Down here in South Florida they are obligated to warn people the date and time of the checkpoint in the local newspapers.

Yeah...
I wonder if that's why they are putting he sign on the truck?..
Maybe they think having a sign on a truck 1 mile before the checkpoint waives that legal issue?

And I am all for allowing the police to do their job.
But that doesn't mean setting up paranoid militant government type checkpoints to limit the free movement of the population.
Yes, that is exactly what this feels like.
If this is allowed, then what is to stop every single community from setting up similar checkpoints on the highways?
The police need a reason to set up a roadblock checkpoint- some crime was committed, they are looking for a kidnap victim, etc.
And they better have more probable cause other than "he was driving down this road" to say a drug dog "gave the signal" which allowed them to tear apart my car and find nothing, then leaving me with a torn up car.... and yes, that does happen.

How about using those police officers to tackle crimes with victims?
Oh wait, they don't get to seize cash and cars when they do that... making this seem more like revenue generation than crime fighting.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yeah...

How about using that police officers to tackle crimes with victims?
Oh wait, they don't get to seize cash and cars when they do that.

X2

Good police work rarely if ever involves sitting around waiting for criminals to come to you. As far as the US Gov't is concerned you are protected from these types of operations, however the certain States like Michigan apparently are using their power to run these "check points". As an American you're free to move to a State that doesn't neccessarily get behind these sort of efforts.

[bmann]

[B]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.

Wayne State University Law School professor Peter Henning said police can set up roadblocks to search all who pass by, but only if a crime has just been committed.

I agree with the intent of the original law in that they should only be done to screen for highly relevant situations, such as looking for a serial killer that may be fleeing the area.

General purpose roadblocks are overstepping what is reasonable and if you are just on your merry way to the grocery store you shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by traffic stops and delays that aren't necessary.

[barry2952]

I don't understand why they give any warning at all. Seems counterproductive to what they are trying to accomplish.

[JMTombstone]

If the dog is not entering the car and just sniffing around it, this is not a case of illegal search and seizure. Dog catches a scent of something? Probable cause, a search can take place and be 100% legal. It's just like plain view, if something is within view of an officer walking by the car (e.g. drugs in the back seat visible from the outside of the car) than the officer can legally search the car.

[BRealistic]

X2

Good police work rarely if ever involves sitting around waiting for criminals to come to you. As far as the US Gov't is concerned you are protected from these types of operations, however the certain States like Michigan apparently are using their power to run these "check points". As an American you're free to move to a State that doesn't neccessarily get behind these sort of efforts.

That, and we already have the highest percentage of citizens incarcerated in the world.
I think the number is around 1% of the population is incarcerated.
Some would say that the privatization of prisons combined with the war on drugs has made prison management a profitable business in the US.
I'm no "Drugs are good..man" spokesperson, but we need to change out laws so that we can focus more of the real criminals (crimes with victims) with real prison terms versus letting them out early because of all the mandatory minimum drug possessions filling the prisons.



Something is wrong with our "system" if we feel the need to incarcerate that much of our population.

[BRealistic]

If the dog is not entering the car and just sniffing around it, this is not a case of illegal search and seizure. Dog catches a scent of something? Probable cause, a search can take place and be 100% legal. It's just like plain view, if something is within view of an officer walking by the car (e.g. drugs in the back seat visible from the outside of the car) than the officer can legally search the car.

What was the probable cause to stop your vehicle in the first place?

[Basil Fawlty]

I don't understand why they give any warning at all. Seems counterproductive to what they are trying to accomplish.

It's a good point, but that's the law under which some States operate; presumably that's the less "draconian" version of just stopping people and asking "Your papers please..." that State legislators were able to get enacted without too much outcry.

[watsontb]

Isnt the "probable cause" that Flint has seen great increases in the amount of drugs coming into the city.

And the drugs probably come in cars, which probably drive on roads? They already should have the planes covered via airports, and I dont believe that trains are a very used method of drug transfer.

Also for those worried about getting caught with a small amount and then ruining your life, convince your government and convince them to make small amounts not chargeable. until then its still considered illegal, even if it shouldn't be. The police are just the face and the actions of your government, convince them that alcohol is worse for you than weed and that they could make just as much money off it as they do on booze.


also I am from Canada and my extensive knowledge of the constitution is this t shirt

[InfraRedline]

I realize this is the car lounge, but anytime any other topic comes up in here, I am just amazed by how ignorant this country is. So now you're a hippie if you agree with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the other founding fathers?

Then there's the "Well we're already a de facto police state, so what's one more freedom lost?"

Really?

This nation was founded on people who were ready (and did) die for those freedoms! So they could leave their children with a more perfect government that allowed Americans to live their lives however they want as long as it wasn't violating other people's rights. If you're not willing to least give some lip service to these American ideals, I would encourage you to go somewhere else.

[DJMRDARK]

Try posting automotive-related threads and I'll stop complaining. Most of your posts are stir-up-**** troll threads.

Try posting your crap in OT, where it belongs.

Try shutting up. Checkpoints on the road is car related.

[GTXBOY]

Since I don't have drugs in my car I don't really care if a dog gives it a sniff. Go ahead. If you have drugs in your car, you knowingly took a chance and lost.

[NoDubJustYet]

However, due to its proximity to the border, the Border Guard could do this. They do it in Tejas all the time.

This should be no different then a dui checkpoint to check sobriety or a boarder checkpoint if you have nothing to hide whats really wrong with it

You can't really compare this to checks at a border crossing...

The 4th Amendment doesn't exist at the border and Customs/Immigration/Border Patrol require absolutely ZERO probable cause to do pretty much whatever they want. It's called border search authority. Border Patrol is even able to conduct stops up to thirty miles from the border.

This authority isn't given to any other law enforcement agency in the country.

[DJMRDARK]

How is using reasonable cause to search for illegal substances illegal.

The police can enter your home if they detect unreasonable electricity usage and witness other signs of a pot farm. Same applies to your car which as far as I know doesn't enjoy the same protected status as your home.

The problem is that it is not reasonable. If you are in no way indicating that you committed a crime, are committing a crime, or give indication that you are carrying contraband you should not be stopped. The 4th amendment protects you. Any erosion of your rights in turn leads to more erosions of your rights. Allowing this leads to the same mentality that says its okay for police to datamine your phone during a traffic stop, though your phone's contents have nothing to do with said traffic stop.

[2.0T_Convert]

This authority isn't given to any other law enforcement agency in the country.

TSA?

The problem is that it is not reasonable. If you are in no way indicating that you committed a crime, are committing a crime, or give indication that you are carrying contraband you should not be stopped. The 4th amendment protects you. Any erosion of your rights in turn leads to more erosions of your rights. Allowing this leads to the same mentality that says its okay for police to datamine your phone during a traffic stop, though your phone's contents have nothing to do with said traffic stop.

In said situation you just performed an illegal U-turn.

You get pulled over and a dog sniffs around the car. I don't see how you can claim protection when the air around your car isn't your property and it sits over a federal or state road.

[BRealistic]

TSA?
In said situation you just performed an illegal U-turn.

You get pulled over and a dog sniffs around the car. I don't see how you can claim protection when the air around your car isn't your property and it sits over a federal or state road.

Illegal U-turn?
(re-reads original story without skimming)
I missed that before.
So the big sign on the truck is just to get those paranoid about a police check point to do an illegal U-turn? Hmm.
That still doesn't make the police checkpoint legal.
And what of the laws regarding the signage warning oncoming motorists that there is a road block up ahead without any legal road paths to avoid it?
IDK- this entire situation probably needs to be reviewed by the courts.

As mentioned before- most states require road blocks/checkpoints to be posted in the local newspapers 48 hours before. So there are obviously some laws already governing this type of thing.

[Basil Fawlty]

The problem is that it is not reasonable. If you are in no way indicating that you committed a crime, are committing a crime, or give indication that you are carrying contraband you should not be stopped. The 4th amendment protects you. Any erosion of your rights in turn leads to more erosions of your rights. Allowing this leads to the same mentality that says its okay for police to datamine your phone during a traffic stop, though your phone's contents have nothing to do with said traffic stop.

You're making great points but seriously this is not a Federal Checkpoint; your fourth amendment right is guaranteed under the US Constitution as it is illegal for a Federal Agent to operate in this manner, however there is precedent in an opinion given by the US Supreme Court in the early 90's. Whereas in these type of State run operations, where they most certainly are permitted to do this, given certain condtions. You really should understand the State law and those conditions in which State officials carry out their law enforcement business.

/tLC law scholar

[KahviVW]

I don't understand why they give any warning at all. Seems counterproductive to what they are trying to accomplish.

Deterrent effect of checkpoints.

[Jettin2Class]

There is a legitimate public safety interest in getting traffickers off the streets. A dog sniffing while you drive by, perhaps without even stopping is a very unrestrictive search. The airport screeners are FAR more invasive in the searches they can do, whether a dog alerts them or not!

In the case of these searches though, it's a public road, funded by public dollars. The expectation of privacy or being able to carry whatever you want unimpeded is ludicrous.

I would imagine that a drug dog can sense even a small amount and that will lead to people getting searched, having a life-destroying charge for some tiny amount of drugs, etc. Overzealous law enforcement also has the potential to destroy families and communities, especially ones which have already been marginalized, such as flint.

This is the most ridiculous argument: if person KNOWINGLY carries an illegal substance, they take the chance of having this "life-destroying charge". How great is a family or community whose members use illegal and harmful life destroying drugs?

If people's internal, self government worked better and people took care of the bad apples in their own neighborhoods, there would be no need for the external government searches.

[barry2952]

Deterrent effect of checkpoints.

I would think that would simply nail people as they got off the freeway or did a turn-around.

[Basil Fawlty]

Deterrent effect of checkpoints.

The checkpoints don't exist, they pull people over who appear to be avoiding them.

[2.0T_Convert]

That still doesn't make the police checkpoint legal.

That's the kicker. It's going to be up to the courts to decide to take the case now and determine that. We allow "unreasonable" stops and searches for DUI already. My state runs stops for seatbelts and truckers. Airports already have ability to select you for a nice bend over search. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable that we extend this to hunting down drug runners**

** that and the police sure don't mind additional income from anything else they net.

[BRealistic]

The checkpoints don't exist, they pull people over who appear to be avoiding them.

That's not how I read the article.

[MCTB]

The whole notion of a narcotics checkpoint is the problem, not the u-turn. It's as American as "show me your papers".

Do you transport drugs, is that why you have a problem with this? On my trip back from Colorado, they were doing this in Kansas. I drove through right as they were wrapping it up. You are allowed to do a U turn to avoid a check point as long as it is a legal one. Nothing wrong with that. They have no right to pull you over for it either. As for walking a dog down a street to see if it smells anything, I dont see anything wrong with that either. They cannot just burst into your car with their dog to see whats going on. You can always tell them that they cannot search your car, it is your right after all, forcing them to get a warrant but more than likely, theyll have a judge on call ready to issue one. There is no sacrificing of freedom in this at all.