Ohio Police Setup Fake Drug Checkpoints to Fool Motorists

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Alfndrate**

Obligatory Link: http://rt.com/usa/fake-drug-ohio-police-502/

Quote for the Workblocked:

Can police officers trick automobile drivers with bogus traffic stops? Cops in a small Ohio town seem to think so, and now they’re under attack for trying to sweep the city of drugs using a creative little loophole.

The Mayfield Heights, Ohio Police Department is under fire after the city recently decided to establish a “drug checkpoint” on Interstate 271. Randomly stopping cars and combing them for contraband is illegal, though, so law enforcement has been using the next best thing: fake checkpoints.

Cops in the Cleveland suburb of only 19,000 have been placing warning signs ahead of a bogus stop and then monitoring the behavior of drivers. If any cars demonstrate suspicious activity after being alerted of the phony roadblock, police say that’s enough to stop and search them.

Police tried the trick last week when they erected signs reading "Drug Checkpoint Ahead," "Police K9 Dog In Use" and "Prepare to Stop." When they spotted cars trying to turn around, officers were deployed to find out why.

Dominic Vitantonio, an assistant prosecutor for Mayfield Heights, told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer that the local police department netted arrests and even seized drugs as a result of the unorthodox tactic.

"We should be applauded for doing this," he told the paper. "It's a good thing."

Others aren’t so sure, however, including one long-haired motorist who said he was singled out. Bill Peters, a 53-year-old heavy metal radio show host, told the Plain-Dealer that he pulled over recently after seeing one of the signs in order to check his phone for directions. As he was parked on the side of the road, police officers approached his car and asked if he was holding drugs. He wasn’t, and they didn’t find any either.

"The last time I checked, it is not against the law to pull over to the side of the road to check directions," Peters told the paper. According to Vitantonio, though, that gave police enough reasonable suspicion to investigate further.

"I see what they're doing, but I think it's kind of dangerous," Peters added. "It's one thing to do this on a 25 mph road; it's another on a busy interstate. I think it's a violation to just be pulled over and searched."

According to the Plain-Dealer, the Cleveland office of the American Civil Liberties Union is examining the fake checkpoint in order to find out if police are allowed to keep utilizing the trick. Legal experts speaking to the paper say it’s allowed, though, suggesting those traffic stops won’t be lifted anytime soon.

In 2000, the United Supreme Court ruled in Indianapolis v. Edmond that roadblocks conducted to "uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing" are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional. Police can only stop cars randomly if they are keeping illegal aliens outside of the US and trying to combat drunk driving. Using deception, however, is something that is isn’t considered against the law.

"They can lie to anybody," Ohio State University law professor Ric Simmons told the paper.

Heard this in on my morning drive on the radio. It seems like a bit of a case of entrapment. Though the cops aren't technically entrapping you. You are however being "pulled over" due to suspicious behavior such as a U-Turn, stopping on the side of the road, or trying to get off the highway "quickly". There apparently is some weird Supreme Court rulings, though I can't find them. Local Civil Rights Attorney Avery Friedmann mentioned on the local radio station I was listening to that courts have ruled on both sides that this is both legal and not legal.

What does Dakka think?

**Frazzled**

I think its kind of funny.

**marv335**

I don't see the problem.
Now I'm not an expert by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong;
You need probable cause to perform a stop and search.
by trying to avoid the search, drivers open themselves up to a legal search.
Moral of the story, don't have drugs in your car.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
I think its kind of funny.

At the very least it is somewhat clever.

**Sigvatr**

Everything that is bad for drug users / sellers is a good thing.

**Frazzled**

Well, its not illegal.

If there's no actual stop then its not slowing down traffic (grr!!!)

They need to put up a camera and Youtube it, complete with Benny Hill soundtrack.

**Polonius**

There are at least two ways to argue this:

the first is what the city will argue, which is that acting to avoid a checkpoint is "probable cause" for illegal behavior. This has some chance of success, but probably won't fly in the courts, mostly because "they have something to hide" isn't probable cause. The "facts" in such a stop are so vague, it'll be hard for a cop to explain why he stopped a person, and what for. But who knows?

The second is that this is basically a dragnet, and the courts just don't like that. They also don't like overly clever attempts by law enforcement to get around the 4th amendment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:
Everything that is bad for drug users / sellers is a good thing.

Well, having police search every home/business/car in a city would be bad for drug users, but I don't think you need to attend an ACLU meeting to find people that don't like that idea.

**Dreadclaw69**

So the Police need reasonable cause to search a car for drugs, they set up fake roadblocks, people see these roadblocks and try to evade them, thus giving the Police reasonable cause. Pretty clever

**Alfndrate**

marv335 wrote:
I don't see the problem.
Now I'm not an expert by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong;
You need probable cause to perform a stop and search.
by trying to avoid the search, drivers open themselves up to a legal search.
Moral of the story, don't have drugs in your car.

The problem is what the cops are using to define suspicious behavior. The man quoted in the article, Bill Peters (shown below) pulled over to the side of the road after the warning signs, but before the "place" where the stop might have occurred (yes there was no stop). The police saw the man pull over and questioned him about the contents of his vehicle. His looks may have had something to do with it, or they may not have had something to do with it. But they questioned him because he pulled over to the side of the road, not because they had any real reason to suspect he might be carrying drugs. 4 drivers were stopped on Thursday, 3 of the drivers crossed the median and attempted to make a U-Turn, which is illegal to do unless you're emergency services. The worst officers could have done was to write a ticket for the U-Turn, they had no probable cause to search the vehicles for drugs except in the situation that they created.

The Bill Peters story gets weirder...

Link: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/06/fake_drug_checkpoint_in_mayfie.html

Spoiler:

MAYFIELD HEIGHTS, Ohio -- Police are not allowed to use checkpoints to search motorists and their vehicles for drugs. So, in Mayfield Heights, officers are trying the next-best thing -- fake drug checkpoints.

Police gathered in the express lanes of Interstate 271 on Monday after placing signs along the freeway warning motorists that a drug checkpoint lay ahead.

There was no checkpoint, only police waiting for motorists to react suspiciously after seeing the signs. A Mayfield Heights assistant prosecutor says it's a lawful and legitimate tactic in his city's war on drugs.

"We should be applauded for doing this," Dominic Vitantonio said. "It's a good thing."

Civil libertarians and one of the people who was stopped and searched are skeptical. They wonder if officers were profiling motorists and whether anyone's Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures was violated.

Nick Worner, a spokesman for the Cleveland office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his office will examine the circumstances surrounding the fake checkpoint.

"We're going to be gathering information," Worner said. "That information will determine what we think is going on."

The fake checkpoints are legal, experts say. A 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said actual checkpoints are not legal and that police can randomly stop cars for just two reasons: to prevent illegal aliens and contraband from entering the U.S. and to get drunk drivers off the road.

It's unclear if other police departments in Northeast Ohio have tried fake drug checkpoints.

On Monday, Mayfield Heights police placed a series of signs along the northbound I-271 express lanes that said: "Drug Checkpoint Ahead," "Police K9 Dog In Use" and "Prepare to Stop." Officers then watched how motorists reacted after seeing the signs.

Vitantonio said there were arrests and drugs seized. He said Thursday that four people were stopped and searched. Three of the motorists crossed through the grassy median or at emergency vehicle crossings, evasive actions that gave police reasonable suspicion to stop those cars.

The fourth motorist, Bill Peters of Medina, insists he did nothing wrong except to park on the side of the freeway to check his phone for directions. He was stopped and allowed police to search his car. Vitantonio said that if Peters had not given police permission to search, they would have had to let him go.

Peters, 53, said he was driving on I-271 around 11:30 a.m. when he missed the merge that would take him into the local lanes and allow him to exit at Wilson Mills Road. He said he pulled over to check his phone for directions. As he pulled back onto the freeway, he said his phone disconnected from the charger, so he returned to the berm to reconnect it.

He said he had seen the drug checkpoint signs and was not worried. Peters has long hair and distinguished heavy metal roots. He spent 26 years in sales and marketing for Warner Bros. Records, owns a music label, hosts a heavy metal radio show at John Carroll University and is an ardent promoter of local talent. Despite his background in a business where drugs are de rigueur, Peters insists he has never inhaled.

He wonders if officers targeted him because of his appearance.

"The last time I checked, it is not against the law to pull over to the side of the road to check directions," said Peters, who added that the officer who stopped him commended him for being safety conscious.

Vitantonio insisted that Peters gave police reasonable suspicion to pull him over.

After stopping and returning to the freeway, Peters said he saw a sign that said, "Be Prepared to Stop," which prompted him to slow a bit. Seconds later, a police car was behind him, lights flashing.

Peters said the officer asked if he was having car trouble. Peters explained why he had stopped on the berm and then slowed down. He said the officer quizzed him about what kinds of drugs he had in the car, saying it would be much easier to confess before other officers and a drug-sniffing dog arrived. Peters insisted he had no drugs. As promised, other officers and the dog were summoned.

"I see what they're doing, but I think it's kind of dangerous," Peters said. "It's one thing to do this on a 25 mph road, it's another on a busy interstate. I think it's a violation to just be pulled over and searched."

Ric Simmons, a law professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, said police are allowed to deceive people, thus the fake checkpoint was legal.

"They can lie to anybody," Simmons said.

Prominent Cleveland civil rights attorney Terry Gilbert thinks the reason police stopped Peters is questionable. Gilbert said police are allowed to deceive suspects, but questioned the practice of lying to motorists about a fake drug checkpoint on a busy highway.

"I don't think it accomplishes any public safety goals," Gilbert said. "I don't think it's good to mislead the population for any reason if you're a government agency."

Michael Benza, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said motorists often do not know their rights. You must stop when an officer pulls you over for a traffic violation, but it does not necessarily mean they can search your car without your permission. Police need to be able to provide a judge with a legal and valid reason for why they ordered a search of your car."

I guess what seems weird about this whole situation is the fact that the police are allowed to lie to you in such situations to create a situation in which you can potentially incriminate yourself. I realize that getting drugs off the street is a good thing, but when you have 7+ police officers sitting around doing nothing except trying to catch drug dealers that may or may not exist, it seems as though it's a waste of taxpayers money.

Frazzled wrote:
Well, its not illegal.

If there's no actual stop then its not slowing down traffic (grr!!!)

They need to put up a camera and Youtube it, complete with Benny Hill soundtrack.

Except that when they post signs that say, "slow down ahead" and they then pull you over for slowing down and following the signs... it creates congestion and does indeed slow down traffic.

Edit: Polonius, thanks for the quick legal recap. I figured you might have heard of this being from the area as well.

**Frazzled**

Considering how easy it is to support a stop now, I don't see this not passing muster.

Legal stop and random searches (er, sobriety checkpoints) are constitutionally valid. I'd see this as substantially higher probable cause.

Having said that, the Frazzled views the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment as pretty much dead, which is a cancer to a free society and not at all what they were intended for.

**Polonius**

We are only a few more SCOTUS decisions away from treating driving on public highways as completely unprotected. The list of exceptions is staggering.

On a non-legal note, how excited do you think law enforcement groups are that a city is lying to score a few possession arrests? I mean, we all know (or should know) that police can lie, but we assume it's a little more targeted. I'm not thrilled that cops are just lying to everybody, and pulling over those that fall for it.

But, I'm sure growing mistrust between police and middle class America is a good thing.

**Rented Tritium**

Turning around when you see a sign about a checkpoint should not constitute probable cause.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
We are only a few more SCOTUS decisions away from treating driving on public highways as completely unprotected. The list of exceptions is staggering.

Exactly, and unfortunately.

On a non-legal note, how excited do you think law enforcement groups are that a city is lying to score a few possession arrests? I mean, we all know (or should know) that police can lie, but we assume it's a little more targeted. I'm not thrilled that cops are just lying to everybody, and pulling over those that fall for it.

But, I'm sure growing mistrust between police and middle class America is a good thing.

Did other people assume police weren't lying?

**kronk**

I've watched enough COPs to know that police are lying liars that lie with their lie holes, and that watching people get tazed is really funny.

**Alfndrate**

Rented Tritium wrote:Turning around when you see a sign about a checkpoint should not constitute probable cause.

Sadly it did, as did pulling over on the side of the road for safety concerns as did slowing down due to a sign that was posted by the police officers...

Frazzled wrote:
Polonius wrote:
On a non-legal note, how excited do you think law enforcement groups are that a city is lying to score a few possession arrests? I mean, we all know (or should know) that police can lie, but we assume it's a little more targeted. I'm not thrilled that cops are just lying to everybody, and pulling over those that fall for it.

But, I'm sure growing mistrust between police and middle class America is a good thing.

Did other people assume police weren't lying?

No, but I'd at least think the police would be trying to hide it a little bit

**Steve steveson**

Not really a huge surprise TBH. It's not that much difference to what the police do when they are in a car. They will look for people acting strangely because there is a police car around.

It's not entrapment or anything like it. Entrapment is encouraging someone to brake the law. To do that they would have to have signs saying "Keep drugs in your car"

**Alfndrate**

I'm not saying it is, though it could be construed as fraud in some cases

...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud wrote:Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

So the police present a sign that says Drug Checkpoint ahead when there isn't one (1). The police know that there isn't a drug checkpoint ahead (2). The police are using the sign to get people to act a certain way (3). People tend to believe signs put up by police (4). If the police pull you over and they find drugs you are receiving some sort of "injury" in the form of potential jail time (5).

Like I said, it's probably not, but it'd be interesting if someone could argue that it was Fraud on the part of the police

**Kilkrazy**

You can't count a legitimate punishment as an injury.

The question therefore returns to the legality of the overall police operation.

**sourclams**

Y'know I do find this interesting and clever. It appears to be effective and I imagine it also saves quite a lot of money.

It'll suffer diminishing returns, though. Do it enough and the most 'in the know' drug users/dealers will understand what's going on, although they'll continue to scoop up the 'stupid' crowd.

If they can do stuff like Bait Cars, makes sense that they can do stuff like this (if an actual law is violated, like illegal U-turn). I understand that last bit gets blurry, though.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Alfndrate wrote:
I'm not saying it is, though it could be construed as fraud in some cases ...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud wrote:Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

So the police present a sign that says Drug Checkpoint ahead when there isn't one (1). The police know that there isn't a drug checkpoint ahead (2). The police are using the sign to get people to act a certain way (3). People tend to believe signs put up by police (4). If the police pull you over and they find drugs you are receiving some sort of "injury" in the form of potential jail time (5).

Like I said, it's probably not, but it'd be interesting if someone could argue that it was Fraud on the part of the police

What if, every so often they run these check points, but make them for real? This way, the people who are transporting drugs but are smart enough to not fall for a fake check point, get caught in a check point? It'd create a environment where sure, people never know if the cops are lying or not, but that's kinda the point. If you don't transport drugs in your car, they won't find them and put you in prison right?

**Sigvatr**

Polonius wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:
Everything that is bad for drug users / sellers is a good thing.

Well, having police search every home/business/car in a city would be bad for drug users, but I don't think you need to attend an ACLU meeting to find people that don't like that idea.

Killing the entirety of mankind would be bad for them too...but I assume you got my point

**kronk**

I don't like the situation. However, it's really funny to me for some reason.

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
I don't like the situation. However, it's really funny to me for some reason.

As I said. Imagine it with a Benny Hill musical soundtrack.

**Alfndrate**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
What if, every so often they run these check points, but make them for real? This way, the people who are transporting drugs but are smart enough to not fall for a fake check point, get caught in a check point? It'd create a environment where sure, people never know if the cops are lying or not, but that's kinda the point. If you don't transport drugs in your car, they won't find them and put you in prison right?

A devious ploy if I had ever heard one! Too bad that the Supreme court has ruled the only types of checkpoints that can be created are for those checking for illegal immigrants and DUI checkpoints to prevent drunk drivers from roaming the streets.

This doesn't and shouldn't affect most people, the problem that it creates is that officers are pulling people over who haven't actually broken the law to search their vehicle. Though in Ohio (if I remember correctly), you can be pulled over for a safety inspection in which a cop can grant you other tickets if he notices infractions. This was a bit of a weird to do when our seat belt laws were being enforced. You had to have your seat belt on, but if you didn't a cop couldn't pull you over. So a cop could pull you over on the grounds of a probably safety violation and write you a ticket on not wearing your seat belt.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Seems these cops are big on RAW over RAI XD

**Kilkrazy**

sourclams wrote:
Y'know I do find this interesting and clever. It appears to be effective and I imagine it also saves quite a lot of money.

It'll suffer diminishing returns, though. Do it enough and the most 'in the know' drug users/dealers will understand what's going on, although they'll continue to scoop up the 'stupid' crowd.

If they can do stuff like Bait Cars, makes sense that they can do stuff like this (if an actual law is violated, like illegal U-turn). I understand that last bit gets blurry, though.

It's probably effective at picking up some stoned students who get scared and make themselves an easy target. So it will be great for the police to up their arrest count easily.

In terms of the overall war on drugs it is probably completely ineffective and wasteful, not to mention it takes resources away from other crimes which arguably are more serious.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
sourclams wrote:
Y'know I do find this interesting and clever. It appears to be effective and I imagine it also saves quite a lot of money.

It'll suffer diminishing returns, though. Do it enough and the most 'in the know' drug users/dealers will understand what's going on, although they'll continue to scoop up the 'stupid' crowd.

If they can do stuff like Bait Cars, makes sense that they can do stuff like this (if an actual law is violated, like illegal U-turn). I understand that last bit gets blurry, though.

It's probably effective at picking up some stoned students who get scared and make themselves an easy target. So it will be great for the police to up their arrest count easily.

In terms of the overall war on drugs it is probably completely ineffective and wasteful, not to mention it takes resources away from other crimes which arguably are more serious.

You could have stopped with war on drugs = ineffective and wasteful...

**Sigvatr**

Kilkrazy wrote:

In terms of the overall war on drugs it is probably completely ineffective and wasteful, not to mention it takes resources away from other crimes which arguably are more serious.

While I do agree with the overall sentiment, drugs continue to be an important factor that lead to other crimes.

**Rented Tritium**

Sigvatr wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

In terms of the overall war on drugs it is probably completely ineffective and wasteful, not to mention it takes resources away from other crimes which arguably are more serious.

While I do agree with the overall sentiment, drugs continue to be an important factor that lead to other crimes.

Just like alcohol during prohibition.

**daedalus**

Sigvatr wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

In terms of the overall war on drugs it is probably completely ineffective and wasteful, not to mention it takes resources away from other crimes which arguably are more serious.

While I do agree with the overall sentiment, drugs continue to be an important factor that lead to other crimes.

Socio-economic status continues to be an important factor that leads to both, drugs, and crime.