Judge OKs Fake Checkpoints (CO)

[hammer4nc]

An interesting sidelight: Telluride, CO is in San Miguel County, whose sheriff Bill Masters is billed as "America's only Libertarian Sheriff". He has been a vocal opponent of the war on drugs. He has opposed the activities of the 22nd Judicial drug Task Force, who sponsored this shining example of law enforcement creativity.

Telluride has several festivals throughout the year, which bring a steady stream of tourists from all over. I'm sure less affluent towns and counties in that region fish from that stream wherever possible; including law enforcement. Follow the money.

The local leo's seem to take great delight in deceiving the public by posting false signs, and watching people's reactions. I wonder if they employ this modern form of situational ethics when it comes time to testify (testilie?) in court? The ends justify the means, right Vic?

 

[Atticus]

"Are you forgetting the fact that illegal drugs are illegal?"

I wish I could. In my opinion they shouldn't be. People sniff glue also. Should we lock up all model airplane builders, or should we treat people who feel the need to sniff glue?

"Do you want those same users or dealers pushing that crap off in your neighborhood?"

These people weren't dealers.. most likely.

However, to answer your question: Dealers would have a tough time making a living in my neighborhood. People in my hood have jobs, obligations, responsibilities, goals, bills, kids, etc. I'm sure that some of them abuse drugs though..and particularly alcohol, because I see them scoring that bad!ss Budweiser light and Stoli vodka stuff from the local "dealer" nearly every Friday night. Amazingly enough, they make a decision NOT to be drug addicts, all by themselves.

 

[Tamara]

rock_jock,

One is a necessary element of freedom and is protected by the Constitution; the other is not.

...and congress has the authority to ban neither. (Don't believe me? Check Article 1, Sec. 8, then ask yourself why a constitutional amendment was needed to ban alcohol. )

 

[Art Eatman]

Why, Tam! It's merely because Congress hadn't yet figured out all the wonderful uses of the Commerce Clause!

Count me as one who believes the way we're dealing with "the drug problem" as totally wrong, okay? I'm personally uninterested in drugs, but the religious fervor to enforce Draconian laws and punishment strikes me as not only counter-productive but overly expensive.

That said, we do have laws in place. Part of our deal for an arrest is "Probable Cause". It is reasonable to believe that if one avoids a publicized checkpoint by making a U-turn, he had some cause to do so.

The legal issue is whether or not LEOs can set up any sort of check point. Previous court decisions have held that so long as ALL vehicles are stopped, and not just random ones, the checkpoint is legal.

I'm stuck with what the laws say and with what the courts have decided. I don't have the money to challenge "dumbness" all the way to the Supreme Court, nor lobby Congress to do things My Way.

Ya gotta halfway feel sory for Congresscritters: A dope-smoking reporter will write an article about a pro-NORML Congressman implying the guy is in bed with narcotrafficantes...

Georgia LEOs did a similar fake-checkpoint deal on an Interstate. Those who made a U-turn weren't busted for suspected dope; they were busted for an illegal U-turn across the median. After that, it was "in plain view". arrests...

Art

 

[Don Gwinn]

If you watch Reefer Madness, the original drug-war propaganda film, there's a telling moment. The principal of the high school being destroyed by the evil scourge of Marihuana is haranguing the local FBI guy and asking why "you government men" aren't doing something about the Reefer Madness. The man responds:

"I quite agree with you, sir. But do you realize that Marihuana is not like other forms of dope? It grows wild in every state in the Union. There is, therefore, almost no interstate commerce in the stuff and our hands are thus tied."

How far we have fallen since the time when the most blatant drug war propagandists still felt compelled to acknowledge that simple truth.

 

[telomerase]

>trying to equivocate (sic) guns with drugs makes your point moot. One is a necessary element of freedom and is protected by the Constitution; the other is not.

Yes, yes, only your rights are important, not the "other guy's"

Look, I've never used any illegal drugs, so this is definitely an "other guy" issue for me too. But when alcohol Prohibition was tried, they went through the Constitutional process and at least got a vote on it. Drug Prohibition was just instituted by fiat with no Constitutional authority at all. Unless you believe in the Divine Right of Bureaucrats, this has to concern us a bit... and whether or not we use illegal drugs, we all get sick. FDA restrictions on doctor's options hit all of us, and are equally un-Constitutional.

 

[telomerase]

>I wonder if you'd think differently if your neighbor had a meth lab?

Why would your neighbor have a meth lab if there were no Drug Prohibition? Does your neighbor have an aspirin lab? Do you really not see the economics here, or are you just jerking the Jeffersonian's chains? (It's working )

At least Americans in the 1930s figured out the connection between Prohibition and gang warfare (though not in time to stop the momentum that brought us the first Federal gun control law). Perhaps we're not quite as bright today?

Sorry, I'm getting cranky here. I try to get the recommended daily dose of red wine, I really do (I read the recent cardiac disease study in the NEJM) ... but I just hate the taste. I'm afraid my teetotalism makes me unsociable and prone to absenteeism, violence, and disease.

 

[Quartus]

There are more and more generaly "law abiding" folk who are begining to see our Law Enforcement Officers as the enemies of freedom and not to be trusted any more then we trust other street thugs.

This kind of dishonesty is eroding the relationship between Peace Officers and the community they serve. And in the long run this will make police work more difficult and more cops die needlessly.

The question of the legality or not of drugs aside, Zundfolge's comments nicely sum up something that should concern EVERYBODY.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

How long would a tactic like this be effective before people learn it is just fake, and keep on driving?

 

[kentucky bucky]

THANK GOD FOR PRO-COP JUDGES

I love it when a court finds in favor of Law Enforcement. I hope they bust more drug sucking scum. I love to go to bluegrass festivals, and I don't want a bunch of drugged-out morons around me or my family. Don't have dope, and you won't have anything to worry about. SIMPLE!!! It's real easy for me to pass sobriety check points, what do you guys have to worry about???? What would you be throwing out of your car window??

 

[Orthonym]

Pro-Cop Judges=Pro-Perjury Judges, IMNSHO!

 

[Zak Smith]

kentucky bucky,

It's real easy for me to pass sobriety check points, what do you guys have to worry about???? What would you be throwing out of your car window??

Well, for example, let's say I'm coming home to Colorado from our family fun-shoot in Wisconsin and my driving route happens to take me through some locale (I dunno, Illinois maybe?) with some restrictive gun laws and the cop who "checks" my car is scared of the 15 handguns and 5 "evil black rifles" I've got in the back in cases. It's kind of hard to keep everything out of "plain" sight when you've got 20 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo in the rear of your SUV. By the way, the FOPA '86 is supposed to protect me in this case. Mind you, this is purely hypothetical.

If I know there's a roadblock/checkpoint/whatever, I sure as hell am going to try to avoid it. And I'm neither breaking the law nor doing anything immoral. To say otherwise is to say, "Well, since you don't have anything you hide..."

-z

 

[Erik]

Good for the cops.

Good for the judge.

---

"So if someone gets out of their car and holds up a sign that states that the other sign is a fake is that okay?"

Nope. You could be cited for... Oh shoot, I cannot remember of hand, but it is the smame charge which can apply to folks who flash their lights to warn of a speed trap ahead. Interference?

 

[gunsmith]

Littering is a terrible crime

and must be dealt with harshly!
I am not surprised that those hippies
were "littering under the influence"
next they will be littering in your neighborhood!

leave your weed at home till it's legal.
but pleaseDO NOT LITTER!

 

[kentucky bucky]

Hey ORTHONYM

So.....With that reasoning a pro criminal judge = pro truth??? I see, The cops are all bad and lie to convict people all the time. I've head this from nearly every convict that I've had contact with so it must be true.

 

[hammer4nc]

bucky,

Your logic is flawed. Orthonym's statement can be generalized to read: biased (pro-cop) judges = pro-perjury judges. Two logical extensions are biased (pro-criminal) judges = pro-perjury judges; unbiased (neither pro-criminal nor pro-cop) judges = pro-truth judges. Your next statement:

I see, The cops are all bad and lie to convict people all the time. I've head this from nearly every convict that I've had contact with so it must be true.

Reveals more about the writer than as a survey of "convicts'" opinions, if it was meant to educate us? (not). Of course, you're entitled to YOUR opinion, too

 

[kentucky bucky]

hammer4nc

He didn't say "biased", he said "pro-cop" , And thank God there are judges that aren't poisoned by "PC" and still respect law enforcement. Wouldn't it be a shame if a judge ruled on the side of the greater good of society instead of protecting criminals rights. Sounds like some of you need more real life experience with a few convicts to bring you down to reality. It also sounds as if some of you guys have another equation such as....POLICE=CONSPIRACY or how about POLICE=OPPRESSION???

 

[Chris Rhines]

Gun control and drug prohibition have the same moral justification - that an individual cannot be trusted with the control of his own body. You cannot consistently support one and oppose the other.

- Chris

 

[kentucky bucky]

Comparing Gun Ownership to Drug Addiction is preposterous. Addicts don't just hurt their "own body" they hurt "everybody", including their family and my family, if they choose to drive DUI. If someone kicks in your back door while you are gone, and ransacks your house, it's VERY likely that the punk is looking for drug money. That's the way it is where I come from. Maybe the addicts where you come from are outstanding citizens just wanting to live in harmonious freedom. Illegal drugs are a scurge...PERIOD.

HOW LAME!!!

 

[Chris Rhines]

Heh. Funny.

Comparing Gun Control to Drug Addiction is preposterous.

You're absolutely right, that is preposterous. It's also not even close to what I said. I compared gun control to drug prohibition. The two are morally identical.

Addicts don't just hurt their "own body" they hurt "everybody", including their family and my family, if they choose to drive DUI.

Suppose I were to fire up a big, fat doobie right now, sitting here in my den, in the privacy of my own home. How am I hurting you? Be specific, please.

As for driving under the influence, if a person can drive safely under the influence of narcotics, alcohol, Ny-Quil, or what have you, then it is no business of yours (or of mine, or of the state's.) If a person drives unsafely, regardless of what drug they are on, they should be prosecuted for Reckless Endangerment (or more, if they damage another person or their property.)

If someone kicks in your back door while you are gone, and ransacks your house, it's VERY likely that the punk is looking for drug money.

See the above. I don't care why a criminal kicks in my back door; he's no more or less a thief if he's looking for drug money or money to upgrade to Windows XP.

Not much of a debate.

- Chris

 

[hammer4nc]

bucky,

So far you've praised (biased) pro-cop judges. Do you realize you've also exposed one of the (numerous) failures of the current war on drugs?

If someone kicks in your back door while you are gone, and ransacks your house, it's VERY likely that the punk is looking for drug money.

To whit: prohibition inflates the price of banned drugs many orders of magnitude, thus promoting theivery to support the habit.

The ends justify the means, don't let logic get in the way...

 

[Darrin]

Isn't a lie the same as someone whom bears, "false witness?"

Wasn't there something in the 10 Commandments agaist bearing false witness?

Oh, wait, the 10 Commandments don't mean anything anymore, I forgot. Perhaps we should do away with the "laws" that are streamed from the 10 Commandments. Murder, Adultry, Stealing, etc....

This fake checkpoint thing smells worse than my cat's litterbox when I've been away for the weekend.

 

[jimpeel]

The lesson to be learned here is to never carry more drugs with you than you can comfortably eat between the time the reds come on and the cop gets to the door.

 

[Justin]

One must wonder what would happen if, upon seeing the checkpoint signs, you were to dump copious amounts of bleached flour out of the window of your car...

 

[Erik]

Represenbting a substance as a drug is a crime in many, many places.