

Ohio Police Department Using Fake Drug Checkpoints - cinquemb
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/06/30/us/ap-us-fake-drug-checkpoints.html

======
DanBC
> large yellow signs along Interstate 271 that warned drivers that there was a
> drug checkpoint ahead, to be prepared to stop and that there was a drug-
> sniffing police dog in use.

One thing hinted at in the article is the risk of harm to "innocent"[1]
drivers from drivers carrying drugs who are distracted by the large scary
yellow signs, and thus driving while distracted.

> Peters said the officer asked him what kind 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, and Peters agreed to allow his car to be
> searched.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it you shouldn't agree to be searched.
What's the current best practice for this?

[1] using the words of law enforcement to emphasise the point.

~~~
nwhitehead
The current best practice is that when police ask you to give up your
fundamental rights you politely say no. Calmly say, "I don't consent to
searches."

There is literally nothing good that can come from giving up your rights if
you are innocent (for you personally, for the police, for society).

~~~
rabbidruster
The problem is this can be more of a hassle for you. I've been pulled over as
a teenager and when I said no he decided to search my car anyway. Saying no
doesn't always help, in fact sometimes it makes them give you more trouble and
search harder.

~~~
narwally
If you had consented to the search, then anything he found would have been
admissible in court; By not giving your consent to the search you made it so
anything that was found wouldn't have held up in court. A cop only asks to
search your vehicle if he doesn't already have probable cause to do so without
your permission.

------
nulagrithom
I don't quite understand how this is any different from a real checkpoint.
There's a sign that says there's a checkpoint, there's dogs, and four cars
were searched.

Only difference is they didn't search 100% of the cars.

~~~
rabbidruster
Not sure how they do it in Ohio, but they've been doing this in Missouri for a
while. They post the signs right before an exit that is rarely used that say
something like "Drug checkpoint ahead be prepared to stop." I think I even saw
it say something like last exit before checkpoint once. They then stop
everyone that gets off at the exit. If you take a second to think about it,
it's pretty obvious. Apparently it still manages to catch people.

------
mabbo
I know this technique is probably not going to be used for good purposes, and
I'm sure we'll have to apply a new patch to fix that vulnerability in our
(legal) code, but I still tip my hat to the clever hacks who came up with this
attack.

------
vacri
_police can randomly stop cars for just two reasons: ... to get drunk drivers
off the road._

If a driver appears to be drunk, how is that a random stop? Isn't that a
'probable cause' thing?

~~~
thejsjunky
> If a driver appears to be drunk, how is that a random stop?

They're not stopping drivers who "appear to be drunk" \- that's the point.
They are allowed (supposedly, IANAL) to set up a checkpoint to stop __every
__car (effectively a random stop) that passes by to see if the driver is
intoxicated, or check to see that they are not in the country illegally.

They're not allowed to check for other crimes without probable cause though.
They can't set up a check point to say drug possession or tax evasion, though
if you are at a DUI checkpoint I believe you may somehow give them probable
cause to check for those things.

