Police lieing to drivers about supposed drug checks
If you saw a sign in a town that stated there will be police checks of all books that you are reading, would you be alarmed? Would you be angry? Such a check would be unconstitutional, though police less then half a century ago did persecute socialist book sellers in parts of the country, and many books were indeed banned. Well, something similiar is happening in Mayfield Heights, Ohio.
This suburb of Cleveland has put on the part of the interstate that goes through their town, signs that state police drug checks are ahead. Even though we as a nation cut corners on the 4th Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure (by soberity and so called safety checks along with U.S. Border patrol checks within 100 miles of the border) we don't make such a mess of the 4th Amendment to allow drug checks on the roads.
Some hard core anti-drug zealots would of course support such a thing, if they had their way. Well, the Mayfield Heights Police Department, in their obsession with getting drugs off the road, and probable to confisciate cars and money, puts up these signs. But, to try to keep it semi-constitutional, they don't have actual checks.
The police and government of this town are lieing to you. Playing you for fools. Not only lying but lying about the law and the Constitution. The same principle as if they said they will check your books and magazines. The same if they put up signs that stated freedom of speech, and the right to protest, is not allowed within the town. It is disgusting behavior.
The purpose of these signs is to get people to freak out and try to dodge the supposed checkpoints. The question is, how will this be enforced. If they want to stop a car they find suspicious, will that car turning off the nearest exit be supposed reasonable suspicion for a stop or probable cause for a search of the car?
What about people who just don't want to go through something they know is illegal? If they take what is deemed to evasive action to avoid these checks, is that reasonable suspicion?
If the people of Mayfield Heights, Ohio are fine with a government and a police department that lies to them about the Constitution, the law, then fine. Just don't make everyone else have to suffer through these lies and fictions while traveling through that interstate.
By the way, on a separate issue, why was this elderly woman arrested and essentially manhandled for observing a vote on an anti-abortion bill in the Texas state legislature? In Wisconsin, if you exercise your right to peacefuly film or take pictures of a session, guaranteed by law by the way, the Republicans in the majority command the Capitol police to have you arrested.
This woman did not seem to be doing anything disorderly or illegal. Answers need to be forthcoming, but will they? I have no doubts.
In this other video out of Florida, a woman is ordered to shake her bra for drugs following a police stop. The reason for suspicion, a broken tail light. As everyone knows, only drug users and pushers have broken tail lights on their car. The cop asks her if he can search her car. I wonder if she really thought she could give true consent.
She says yes intitially but then changed her mind, but the cop proceeds to search the car. By the way, you can withdrawl consent at any time along as nothing illegal has been found at the time you withdrawl consent. The cop didn't care or was ignorant of that fact.