Most obviously wrong legal assertion of the year: Reason: “Michigan Sheriff: Random Narcotics Checkpoints Are Totally Constitutional”

Reason magazine: Michigan Sheriff: Random Narcotics Checkpoints Are Totally Constitutional by Lucy Steigerwald:

Genesee County, Michigan Sheriff Robert Pickell is not concerned about the constitutionality of his new method of keeping Flint free of illegal drugs. Fourth Amendment fans, medical marijuana patients, and jumpy motorists are less sure.

According to the Detroit Free Press:

At least seven times [in October] 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 [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.

Apparently nobody read Edmond. This isn’t even a close call. And there will be no qualified immunity for a damages action since Edmond dates from eleven years ago. See Malley v. Briggs: “As the qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Or Brandeis’s dissent in Olmstead:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

Plainly incompetent? Without understanding? Here is Exhibit 1.

Or Johnson:

The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.