From: blosser_cy@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: SEIZURES, STOPS & SEARCHES OF VEHICLES...
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:03:51 EDT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

>I believe that the police only have the authority to stop people at
>these checkpoints; they cannot conduct a search of the people in the
>car beyond what may be allowed in a "Terry stop" (a pat-down frisk for
>weapons is permitted if the police officer believes that he may be in
>danger; such a pat-down must be for weapon-like bumps and bulges
>_only_) and they cannot search the vehicle itself without the
>permission of the driver.<*> Of course, all these protections go out
>the window if in the course of the stop the police _acquire_ probable
>cause for an arrest or a search...

X-NEWS: lrc alt.drugs: 4744
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Highway Interdiction:  more WoSD atrocities
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:40:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

"HIGHWAY DRAGNETS SEEK DRUG COURIERS -- Police stop many cars for searches"

by Joe Hallinan, Newhouse News Services.
  Seattle Times staff reporter Kate Shatzkin contributed to this report.

Reprinted without permission from The Seattle Times, Thurs. Sept. 3, 1992.

				-  *  -

  Jean Benson, a 61-year-old grandmother from Florida, was driving through
Louisiana two summers ago when trouble, in the shape of a flashing blue
light, appeared in her rear-view mirror.

  "Pop your trunk," she remembers the policeman saying.  And when she asked
why, he brought out a piece of paper.

  "It said he had a right to search my car and that I was signing this
voluntarily," Benson recalled.  "But I said, `I don't want to sign that.
I don't want you searching through my personal things.'

  "And he said, `You will sign that piece of paper and we will search
your car.'"

  So she did and they did.  But the policeman found nothing and sent Benson
on her way.  She was so shaken by the incident, Benson said, "I cried for 
the next 100 miles."

  Though she didn't know it, Benson was the victim of a widesprerad tactic
in the war on drugs.  Police call it highway interdiction.  Lawyers call
it a pretextual stop.  Benson might call it looking for an excuse.

  Police departments in nearly every state have programs that teach officers
to stop motorists for menial traffic violations and then search their cars 
for drugs.

  But in many cases, those they stop and search are innocent motorists like
Benson who happen to fit any number of "indicators" police believe are
associated with the drug trade. 

  These indicators can be as innocuous as an open map on the front seat,
a fast-food bag on the floor or, in Benson's case, an out-of-state license
plate.

				- No figures -

  There are no national figures on how many innocent people are stopped and
searched, and state figures are spotty.  But figures gathered from lawsuits
and police agencies indicate many innocent people are stopped before a 
guilty one is caught.

  In South Carolina, for instance, police searched more than 4,000 vehicles
last year; they found drugs in fewer than 15 percent of them.  And in
Pennsylvania, state police made 583 stops last year; 108 resulted in
arrests, and not all of those were for drugs.

  Nearly 1 million contacts Washington State Patrol troopers had with
motorists in 1991 resulted in 458 arrests for felony drug crimes and 1,925
for misdemeanors, State patrol spokesman Bill Burkett said.

  Burkett said troopers are not allowed to stop a car unless the driver
has already committed an infraction, whether with a broken taillight or
moving violation.

  If the officer observes drugs in the open in a car -- as in the case of
a marijuana farmer who was stopped while moving large marijuana plants in
a window van -- he can make an arrest for drugs.  Otherwise, he must receive
consent to search or request a warrant to do so.

  "Our folks tend to start from a premise that you're starting with a clear
violation of the law," Burkett said.  "Then you work backwards with that
with old-fashioned police work, following your nose."

  Says Tery Dellarosa, Indiana State Police:  "The majority of people I stop 
are as innocent as the day is long."

				- Broad indicators -

  Some "indicators" are so broad that it is questionable how well they 
distinguish drug couriers from the general population.  Last year in
Pennsylvania, for instance, the total amount of cocaine seized by police 
in those 583 stops was less than three ounces -- hardly enough to qualify
any of the drivers as a courier.

  All motorists have the right to refuse to have their cars searched.  Courts
have usually upheld car searches when motorists sign consent forms.

  "Highway drug interdiction is, without a doubt, a critical component (in
the war on drugs)," said Richard Dalling, chairman of the National Troopers
Coalition, which represents 40,000 police officers.

  In New Mexico, where state police pioneered interdiction programs, roadside
stops last year snared more than 6,000 pounds of marijuana.

				- Less than fair -

  To many of those who have been stopped on the highway, though, the searches
seem less than fair.

  "I felt incredibly violated," said Bill Schustik, 46, a travelling folk
musician who was stopped and searched two months ago while driving down
Interstate 95 in South Carolina.

  "I've been on the roads of this country for 20 years and I've been stopped
for speeding twice," Schustik said.  But in the last year, he said, he has
been stopped five times and searched three times.

  "I'm at a point where I'm just not going to put up with it any more,"
he said.

  Like many motorists, he said he allowed the searches because he felt 
intimidated and worried that worse things would happen if he said no.

  Indeed, police are taught to use their powers of persuasion to look
inside a car.

  "We definitely tell the people (officers) to try to talk their way into 
a search," said Lt. Mike Nagurny of the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of
drug law enforcement.

  That is what happened to Benson.  She had dropped off her grandchildren
at their home in Austin, Texas, and was returning to Florida by way of
Louisiana when police stopped her on Interstate 10.

  After the officerr told her she had been stopped for an improper lane
change, Benson said, he began asking her "all sorts" of personal questions.

  The officer's conversation is known as "sweet talk," and it has two
purposes:  to check for any contradictions in drivers' story [sic] that
might indicate they have something to hide, and to get car owners to sign
consent-to-search forms.

  Surprisingly, sweet talk almost always works.  In the course of two years
and 150 stops, said Indiana Trooper Dellarosa, "I've never had anybody tell
me I couldn't search."

				- One said `no' -

  One person who did say no is George Karnes, a businessman now living in
California.  In October 1990, Karnes was driving from New York City to
Harrisburg, Pa., to visit a brother.

  Just outside Allentown, Karnes was pulled over by Trooper Thomas Skrutski.
He had clocked Karnes doing 82 miles an hour in a 55 zone, and wrote him a
ticket for the offense.

  But when Skrutski asked to search the car, Karnes said no.

  Once a motorist refuses a search, police are generally instructed to
break off their contact and let the motorist go.

  But the trooper didn't let Karnes go.

  He called K-9 officer Edward Kowalski, who arrived with his drug detection
dog about 20 minutes later.  As Kowalski talked with Karnes, he noticed
several "indicators" in the car, including an open map of New York City and
fast-food bags on the floor.

  Kowalski knew drug couriers often needed maps when picking up or delivering
drugs in unfamiliar cities, and prefer drive-through fast-food outlets so
they don't have to leave their cars.

  Based on what he saw, Kowalski also asked Karnes to allow a search.

  But Karnes refused, so Kowalski brought out his drug dog.  Twice the dog
sniffed its way around the car, detecting no drugs.  Finally -- two and a 
half hours after the initial stop -- the troopers let Karnes go.

			- The risk of a `no' -

  The Karnes case illustrates what motorists risk if they refuse to go
along with a search.  Courts have held that police may detain motorists
for a "reasonable" amount of time, but there's no definition of what is
reasonable.

  Even those who agree to let police search their car may be in for more
than they expected.  Craig Kirby, a 30-year-old Alabama textile worker,
was stopped in July 1990 as he drove on I-10 through Jefferson Davis
Parish in southwestern Louisiana.

  When the officer asked him whether he could search the car, Kirby said:
"Fine."

  The next thing he knew, Kirby was spread-eagled against the side of the
car.  The officer searched his luggage and trunk and looked under his hood
and dashboard.  But the search didn't stop there.  The officer, Kirby said,
made him drive to a gas station, where he had mechanics take apart his
spare tire.  The officer also disassembled his seats, he said.  They found
no drugs and told Kirby he was free to go.  The ordeal lasted an hour and
a half.

  But many searches are based on trivial infractions that seem suspiciously
uniform.  In Jefferson Davis Parish, for instance, police seem fond of
citing motorists for changing lanes without using their blinkers.  

  Police are blunt about their use of traffic laws to stop those they think
might be hauling drugs.

  And which infraction is most popular?

  "Failure to signal lane change -- that's a big one," said Indiana Trooper
Dellarosa.

[End of article.  The following table accompanies the article: ]

			  WHAT POLICE LOOK FOR

  Here are some indicators police often use to determine whether a motorist
might be a drug smuggler, based on court testimony that a Pennsylvania State
Police spokesman said is typical of how other departments operate:

  * Driver is a racial or ethnic minority.

  * Deodorizer in the car to mask odor of drugs.

  * Windows are blacked out.

  * Car is blue, making it easier to blend in with traffic.

  * A mid-size sedan with no frills, also to blend in with other cars.

  * High mileage on odometer.

  * Unfolded maps, especially those opened to "source cities" like New
    York.

  * Person drives cautiously and below the speed limit to avoid detection.

  * CB radio or car phone in the vehicle.

  * Car has either too much or too little luggage.

  * Driver asks to be excused to urinate (to use the opportunity to
    discard incriminating evidence).

  * Fast-food bags in the car (couriers eat in their cars because they
    fear the cars or their drugs may be stolen).

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12911 talk.politics.misc:44994 alt.politics.marrou:1127 alt.politics.bush:4813 alt.politics.clinton:5029 alt.politics.perot:1440