1st Tenn. Now Michigan..

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
This is just another step out of line by Michigan LEO's..remember their "voluntary" cell "dump" they are doing??? Now this...

Drivers face drug checkpoints on highways near Flint

Oct. 21, 2011
BY BILL LAITNER
DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
Drivers face drug checkpoints on highways near Flint | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Motorists driving on expressways around Flint are getting surprised by a stunning tactic that the Genesee County sheriff has been using to fight the flow of illegal drugs -- one that legal experts said will not withstand a court challenge.

At least seven times this month, including Tuesday, 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 Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell and his self-titled Sheriff's Posse said are needed, calling Flint a crossroads of drug dealing because nearly a half-dozen major roads and expressways pass in and around the city. Pickell said he decided to try checkpoints when he learned that drug shipments might be passing through Flint in tractor-trailers with false compartments.

"We're doing everything by the book," Genesee County Undersheriff Christopher Swanson said. "We think there's major loads (of drugs) coming through here from all over, every day. And this is one of the tools we use -- narcotics checkpoints."

He said the dogs are used to sniff around the vehicles to check for drugs.

The practice has legal experts on searches and seizures at two law schools in Michigan, a constitutional law expert in Lansing and the American Civil Liberties Union calling the practice out of bounds and out of touch with state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that ban such practices.

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.

And Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who said he was not consulted by Pickell about the checkpoints, said that after a court challenge, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that so-called "sobriety check lanes," put in place to nab drunken drivers, were illegal.

The new practice of narcotics checkpoints "certainly brings up probable-cause issues," Leyton said Thursday.

Leyton said he has no power to stop the practice, however. That, he said, would require someone arrested at a checkpoint to contest the evidence in court.

The checkpoints have caused an uproar, officials said. And, as a result, the sheriff's office has altered its methods: Instead of using the checkpoints daily -- even Sundays when they started at the beginning of the month -- they are used sporadically. And instead of stopping everyone, law enforcement has been putting the signs out and waiting for a motorist to make an illegal U-turn in the freeway median to try to avoid the checkpoint, thus giving them cause to pull the driver over and search the vehicle.

But even that method raises question, U-M professor Moran said. The technique has not been tested in Michigan courts, he said. But judges would take a dim view of it because "it's perilously close to entrapment," he said.

"It's just the kind of shabby treatment that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent," Moran said.

Among the groups of motorists most stunned by the checkpoints are state-registered medical marijuana users and caregivers. Pickell and Swanson said the checkpoints weren't meant to target medical-marijuana users, but word of the new tactic spread quickly through that community.

Many registered users and caregivers told the Free Press they now fear driving near Flint, even when they possess their medical-marijuana registry cards.

At a checkpoint Tuesday afternoon just west of Flint on I-69, officers pulled over only those who saw the checkpoint sign, then made an illegal U-turn on the freeway, Jamie Fricke, 31, of Lapeer said.

"But my buddy went through this on Monday and he said they were pulling over all enclosed trailers. They had drug-sniffing dogs out that day," on I-69 east of Flint, in Burton, she said.

Fricke, a state registered medical-marijuana user, said she had a small amount of the drug with her, but her car was not searched.

Larry and Diane Foster, both of Muskegon, said they saw a checkpoint Oct. 5 in which officers were stopping every motorist on eastbound I-69.

"We were going in the opposite direction or we would've been stopped," said Diane Foster, 55, a state-registered medical-marijuana user and caregiver. "I had medication (marijuana) on me, so I don't know what the outcome would've been."
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
But isn't that a double standard in a way....how about them checkpoints out of bordertowns?....

Iam assuming the DHS/CBS could setup the same checkpoints 30-40 miles away from the Canadian border?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
You guys blind?

Any of you seen the ICE cars and SUVs sitting on the side of I75 and those who pull over trucks and cars?

I think many need to start asking what white cars with green symbols on their side are operating on the freeways and not near the international border.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
You guys blind?

Any of you seen the ICE cars and SUVs sitting on the side of I75 and those who pull over trucks and cars?

I think many need to start asking what white cars with green symbols on their side are operating on the freeways and not near the international border.

I believe the range of the CBS/DHS was extended a few years back...I've seen cruisers in Ohio...Federal Officer...NOT US Marshalls service either
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well federal officers matters which ones. They have jurisdiction over a really large area - the country - when it comes to immigration but they are not allowed to be traffic cops. This is what they are doing - pulling cars over to check them.

US marshals do not drive ICE vehicles and neither does the DEA.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Well federal officers matters which ones. They have jurisdiction over a really large area - the country - when it comes to immigration but they are not allowed to be traffic cops. This is what they are doing - pulling cars over to check them.

US marshals do not drive ICE vehicles and neither does the DEA.

I think you'll find the DHS is the supreme power now...all they have to do is use the word "Terrorist"....

DHS is growing into the Gestopo...
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
The SHERIFFS checkpoint is NOT stopping EVERY car or truck, just ramdom...thats the Border Patrol checkpoints, every car and truck go through them

And instead of stopping everyone, law enforcement has been putting the signs out and waiting for a motorist to make an illegal U-turn in the freeway median to try to avoid the checkpoint, thus giving them cause to pull the driver over and search the vehicle.

...and yes the Border Patrol is all over 75 but they are not stopping cars at ramdom...they are simply doing the job of the low staffed MSP...and "patroling the road"....oh, and those that they do stop...chances are they are "PROFILING"!!!!:eek::D
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
OVM, guess what?

Not a chance they have supreme powers.

they are simply doing the job of the low staffed MSP

Hey Dennis, they can't - period.

They are not allowed to enforce state laws by their own limitations through the constitution and congress and by a number of laws within the state. They can hold people for felonies but not traffic stops. Our state has laws that permit counties to patrol interstates within their jurisdiction and many times Monroe, Wayne and Oakland counties will do just that.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
If the Sheriff believes that major narcotics loads are traveling through the area "in t/ts with false compartments" why is he stopping 4 wheelers? Doesn't that invalidate his justification?
Would it be acceptable if he didn't request anything from any one unless and until a narcotics dog alerted on the vehicle? :confused:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
If the Sheriff believes that major narcotics loads are traveling through the area "in t/ts with false compartments" why is he stopping 4 wheelers? Doesn't that invalidate his justification?
Would it be acceptable if he didn't request anything from any one unless and until a narcotics dog alerted on the vehicle? :confused:

I had a drug dog "alert" on my truck in Canada. The Mounties made my wife and I stand out in the cold wind (sub zero temps and 30MPH winds) for 40 minutes while they tore my truck apart looking for drugs. Of course the found none. The dog was a lab pup, no more than a year old. It was wrong. Dogs ain't always right either. I don't believe that an "alert" from one dogs is probable cause.

(darn dog peed on my tires too)
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I had a drug dog "alert" on my truck in Canada. The Mounties made my wife and I stand out in the cold wind (sub zero temps and 30MPH winds) for 40 minutes while they tore my truck apart looking for drugs. Of course the found none. The dog was a lab pup, no more than a year old. It was wrong. Dogs ain't always right either. I don't believe that an "alert" from one dogs is probable cause.

(darn dog peed on my tires too)

Well, it's a much more reliable indicator [in spite of the occasional errors that are inevitable in everything involving humans] than just stopping everyone who is driving through, isn't it?
The RCMP service should offer shelter, at the least, to the folks they temporarily evict from their own vehicle - that was just uncalled for rudeness! :(
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I had a drug dog "alert" on my truck in Canada. The Mounties made my wife and I stand out in the cold wind (sub zero temps and 30MPH winds) for 40 minutes while they tore my truck apart looking for drugs. Of course the found none. The dog was a lab pup, no more than a year old. It was wrong. Dogs ain't always right either. I don't believe that an "alert" from one dogs is probable cause.

(darn dog peed on my tires too)

Well, it's a much more reliable indicator [in spite of the occasional errors that are inevitable in everything involving humans] than just stopping everyone who is driving through, isn't it?
The RCMP service should offer shelter, at the least, to the folks they temporarily evict from their own vehicle - that was just uncalled for rudeness! :(


The ONLY shelter they provided was standing behind a building. It was a reefer load too, I had to open the cargo box. It was open for 20 minutes. I was starting to get angry. Make my wife stand out in the cold like that. That's fightin stuff, if they were not armed things might have got ugly.
 

usafk9

Veteran Expediter
FWIW, Joe, (at least in the states) the sniffing by the dog is an examination without a foundation for a search. A positive response is PC for a search warrant, whether it was a false positive or an accurate response. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a dog can be led into a positive, either to juke the handler out of a reward prematurely, or just to get the inspection over with more quickly (the dog probably didn't like the cold, either), or because they're interested in a food odor they smell.

What troubles me is the four-wheelers being stopped. The LEO has to have PC to initiate the traffic stop (not so much in your case=commercial vehicle). These 'checkpoints' have troubled me for years. And yes, police state comes to mind here. also.
 
Top