Officers in my county, as they did several years ago before I took office, want to post a sign (with TX Dept. of Transportation permission) on a highway saying "NARCOTICS CHECKPOINT 2 MILES AHEAD". Just down the highway past the sign, there would either be an exit with a stop sign or a U-turn with a stop sign. It is expected that those vehicles carrying drugs will either exit or make a U-turn. Officers will be observing the vehicles from a concealed position. Those vehicles that fail to come to a complete stop or use a turn signal will be stopped. Other vehicles will not be stopped.

There will not be an actual "checkpoint". Only motorists that are seen violating the law will be stopped. Possibilities include a search incident to an arrest and consent to search situations. I am told this has resulted in numerous seizures of drugs and vehicles for forfeiture in the past.

What thoughts do you have as to the propriety of engaging in this conduct? Would you prosecute cases derived from such a "checkpoint" sign?

We had a request to do this exact thing in Tarrant County about 5 years ago. Others in our office would know better than I what we told DPS exactly; but my recollection is that we told not to do it. Our biggest concern was that someone would get killed because some drug dealer (or some kid with a tiny amount of pot) tried an illegal U-turn. Also, some concern that stop would be illegal.

I don't have the data, just guessing, but if you believe a substantial portion of your target audience for this idea is coming from parts south of our border with Mexico, might you need either a bilingual sign, or at least one with a simpler translation?

Is crime so low that officers are looking for something to do?

I'm curious too about the growing sentiment that narcotics crimes are not important or do not constitute "real crimes." In fact, if you were to consider some of the legislation presently pending in Austin, along with media coverage which seems to be very critical of task forces and narcotics investigations; you would almost get the impression that it has become politically incorrect to aggressively investigate or prosecute narcotics crimes.

Forgive me for sounding ignorant but has some learned scholar all of a sudden discovered that illegal drugs are not really a contributing factor in all sorts of self-destructive and criminal behavior including thefts, forgeries, child abuse or endangerment, robberies, and perhaps many homicides?

In another life I'm a volunteer firefighter. A year or so back, I had the privilige of assisting in the recovery of the charred remains of two children who died in a house fire that was almost certainly the result of the explosion of a clandestine methamphetamine lab. We were never able to prove it but the conventional wisdom was that the parents had left the kids home alone late at night while they went to a store to purchase more Sudafed pills.

It's nice to know that narcotics are no longer an evil in our society. I'll sleep much better at night.

Amen

You missed my meaning in my somewhat flippant remark. I was not suggesting that drug cases should be a low priority. I was merely questioning whether a roadblock (pretend or real) is an effective use of police officers.

While there are many things being reported incorrectly about the Tulia case (undercover officer making drug cases), we should not ignore the negative opinions that have arisen from that case. The public wants to know that officers are making effective use of their time, investigating crimes in a professional and unbiased manner.

A roadblock necessarily involves detention of many innocent people for the sake of a few guilty people. Such an approach is tolerated by the public when we have a fleeing bank robber or terrorist, but I doubt if there is a lot of good feelings about it as a regular practice for drug sweeps.

In addition, the roadblock must be located in a particular place and, once again, resurrects issues of racial profiling. Even if the roadblock is located in a high traffic drug zone, it will undoubtedly involve questions about whether the location unfairly targets minority groups.

All I am saying is that if I have to weigh to pluses and minuses of a roadblock, I do not think the few cases we gain are worth the negative publicity and lengthy litigation that will inevitably follow.

There are sound techniques for investigating drug dealers. We should work on improving those techniques and reestablish the public's confidence in that area before expanding to another more controversial technique.

I don't want to be accused of being in favor of drugs, but doesn't it breed a disrespect for the law if police post signs on the road that are false. You could only use this stunt once before you started seeing lots of news reports about the police tricking people. Even law abiding citizens are likely to resent this tactic. And heaven help any county that gets sued after the inevitable car crash this stunt causes.

John, are you too close to the fire to tell how hot it really is (or is not)? I'm convinced that Tulia and Dallas are the motivation for SB515 (and I did fire off an e-mail to West and Hinojosa to that effect), but out here in the hinterlands, I'm not sure whether or not those cases really resonate. I'm curious what the view is for other prosecutors not in Dallas or Austin. BTW, there was a great article in the "Dallas Observer," a weekly rag that one would normally consider quite "Librul" giving major props to Bill Hill for his concerned response to the fake drug scandal, while harshing on Chief Bolton pretty severely for not caring.

For an update on how people are responding to roadblocks during war, check out:

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D7PT32TO0_story

The tactic of putting up signs on a hwy. announcing, "Be Prepared To Stop," "Police Narcotics Checkpoint Ahead," does not amount to a roadblock. The only people stopped are those who violate the law by cutting across the median to turn around, or who run stop signs once they get off the highway. These are people who have something illegal to hide, so who cares what they think? The rest of the motoring public just keeps on driving, and when they don't see a police roadblock after a few miles, probably figures, "I guess they took down the roadblock," and then they go on to a more interesting topic of conversation.

I think psuedo-narcotics checkpoints are a brilliant idea.

I fail to see how "racial profiling" can be factored into such an operation at all. Everyone seen crossing the median right after the warning sign gets stopped; their race doesn't figure into it. The vast majority will be carrying contraband, and if more are of one race than another, so what?

In any case, racial profiling is mostly a fig newton of the media's imagination, and their unscientific statistical "studies," of arrest and search numbers which fail to control for all varibles. The best way to combat that is to confront the media with their mistakes, IMHO.

For an update on what a hearing on a sloppy investigation can do for the public's perception of our criminal justice system, see: Tulia hearing.

In today's news:

Judge recommends overturning Tulia drug convictions

By Betsy Blaney

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tuesday, April 1, 2003

TULIA, Texas (AP) A judge recommended Tuesday that a higher court overturn 38 drug convictions that defense attorneys claimed were racially motivated.

The 1999 arrests stemmed from the work of a single undercover agent whom other law-enforcement officials said had faced theft charges and used a racial epithet.

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 04-02-03 at .]

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 04-02-03 at .]

For another update on Tulia, go to today's Statesman.

The Swisher County commissioners may have their hearts in the right place, but after being falsely accused and then spending up to three years in jail, only $6K is adding insult to injury. I'm sure the amounts being paid don't even cover the attorneys' fees!

For the Texas Lawyer story, go to Texas Lawyer.

I think the technique used here is a testament of creative thinking of law enforment. Drug smugglers come up with new and innovative ways all the time to make it harder for law enforcement to find their illegal cargo. When law enforcement counters with a technique like this (in conjuction with a drug dog)it brings a smile to my face. Our police department uses this technique, and recently arrested two men smuggling 132 pounds of cocaine. Our office looks forward to fighting appeals on these types of cases.

The way you win and keep the public's trust and confidence (referencing the the Tulia scandal & Dallas fake drug scandal)is to make sure your own jurisdictional pond is clean and prestine. If you see some pollution in your pond you deal with it immediately to limit its destructive effects.

[This message was edited by Chris Martin on 04-08-03 at .]

Looks like someone else is doing something similar. Do we really have to drum up business? Or do you feel this is a legitimate technique?

web page

This kinda reminds of the famous "Christian burial speech" case that led to constitutional case law on confessions...oh that line between creative police work and the constitution.....

I'm not sure why one considers this drumming up business any more than sending out U/C narcotics officers to purchase drugs from local street dealers. I found the concept somewhat novel and a little humorous (I love contemplating the Oh Sh*t factor when folks doing something they ain't suppose to see the sign)However, my limited experience with this type of tactic is it nets more drunk drivers and teenage kids up to no good than drug couriers.