Drug WarRant

I’ve heard of these roadside fishing expeditions before, but this was the first time I’ve encountered one.
I was heading out of town to visit relatives for Thanksgiving on Tuesday morning and discovered that the sheriff had set up at a local rest area (I-55 Funk’s Grove Rest Area at mile marker 149, 10 miles south of Bloomington, Illinois). There were two signs on the roadside before the rest area exit. The first one apparently indicated that there was a roadblock ahead (I quite frankly didn’t pay attention to it), and the next one said “All vehicles subject to search.” The second sign was just 20 yards or so before the rest area exit.
The idea is, of course, that they don’t actually have a roadblock ahead, but they search the cars that exit into the rest area, figuring that anyone carrying drugs will want to take that opportunity to get off and destroy the evidence before hitting the roadblock. The Supreme Court has ruled against drug interdiction roadblocks, but I can’t remember if they’ve heard one of these fake-roadblock/go-after-those-who-avoid-it situations (anyone have the answer?)
As I passed the rest area, I could see cars being stopped as an officer with a dog went around the car sniffing for drugs — perhaps using the horrible Supreme Court ruling in Caballes v. Illinois for guidance. (I’m wondering if the Caballes ruling will result in an increase in these fishing expeditions.) Of course, Caballes was based on a valid traffic stop. Would this kind of stop also be considered valid for a dog sniff that would, by itself, justify a full search?
Now, I can’t report this without pointing out the “stupid” factor. Even assuming you don’t know about this fake-out technique used by the cops, still — how stupid do you have to be to assume that the cops are stupid enough to warn you about car searches while giving you an easy way to get off the road before the roadblock? And yet, I suppose that’s the reason the sign is so close to the exit — not enough time to think it through. All you can do is react.
Unfortunately, relatives and a meal were waiting for me so I couldn’t take the time to stop and check it out — I would have loved to have had a chat with the officers about constitutional rights.
Here’s another question for you: In this situation, could I pull into the rest area and stand on the sidewalk with a sign that read “You are not required to consent to a search’? Since the officers have no evidence that a crime has been committed but are simply fishing, would my free speech rights trump laws against interfering with an officer?
What do you think?
Update: Radley Balko provides excellent background on the status of the Supreme Court thinking regarding these stops.

I’ll be gone for a few days, and while I should be able to get email, I’ll be unable to update the blog. Go to the sites on the left if you get bored — plenty of good stuff there.
If you’d like, read A story for Thanksgiving (Isidro and Teresa Aviles) — my Thanksgiving post from a couple of years ago.
Consider this an open thread. Talk amongst yourselves.

A few months ago, I mentioned the horrible Operation Meth Merchant:

The arrests were for selling legal items like sudafed (in legal quantities), while “knowing” they would be used to make meth. The undercover cops would hit convenience stores run by Indians (who often spoke limited English) and casually mention slang terms like “cooking” to refer to meth — something the foreign clerks didn’t even understand. A stupid law, a stupid sting, and a gross injustice.
Now the ACLU is taking on the case:

I hope the ACLU prevails and all 44 cases are dismissed. That still would not be justice. The government cannot be allowed to get away with such blatant abuses of citizens’ rights.

“bullet” Check out this AP story from North Carolina: Former judge calls drug war a ‘failure’

An entire article talking about the costs of prisons and how reducing sentences and changing how we deal with the drug war could save money. And without the usual irrelevant obligatory quote from some sheriff saying “But what about the message we’re giving to children?”
Hmmm… is this starting to work as a pocketbook issue?

We’ve talked before about the folly of all-out poppy eradication efforts in Afghanistan, but nobody in power appears to understand basic economic principles. With high demand for opium and very few viable alternatives (and no strong infrastructure yet in the country), all that eradication can do is cause the people to oppose the U.S. and their own government. As eradication efforts are stepped up, those criminals who wield the most power or fear will control the distribution and the black-market profits will rise to levels that make the subverting of government officials in a chaotic country like Afghanistan childs play.
Smarter solutions exist. Various sources have suggested that we buy up Afghanistan’s opium for legitimate medical purposes. And the Senlis Council (via TalkLeft) is proposing that solution again and will present a detailed proposal today at Chatham House in London.
And of course, this makes a lot of sense. There are, for example, 130,000 farmers in India who grow opium legally. Why not in Afghanistan?

Bizarrely, that includes… Afghanistan.
The U.S. is spending $780 million on counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan, money that could be spent buying and developing medicines.
But there’s been no indication from the U.S. or British governments so far that such an idea would even be discussed. All the efforts are focus on eradication, just like in Colombia (and that has turned out so well…)
In fact, according to this article, eradication efforts in Afghanistan have recently been expanded to include…. marijuana.

Marijuana earns farmers one quarter of what they get from poppies, but some farmers grew it in order to try to follow the government edict not to grow poppies. The police waited until it was almost ready to harvest.

Isn’t it in our best interests to have stability in Afghanistan? To have farmers able to make a living? Shouldn’t we look at all options?
The Senlis Council is the primary international drug policy reform organization, and they’re starting to be heard (not much here in the U.S., but elsewhere). Here’s hoping that the British, at least, listen to them today.

You may remember me talking about the case of Weldon Angelos — a music producer with no previous record who sold marijuana three times to officers. Because he had a gun (never used or even brandished), his total potential sentence was 63 years. The absolute minimum the judge could sentence him was 55 years (which the judge did, under great protest for the severity of it).
The Denver Post has a good article about the upcoming appeal: Pot-sale case puts focus on mandatory sentences.
For a first offense, a Utahn got 55 years in prison. A Circuit Court appeal says that’s unconstitutional.

Remember the constitution?

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I’d say this qualifies as excessive.

I understand that the court may not wish to get into the never-ending business of drawing arbitrary lines as to what constitutes a cruel and unusual length of sentence. But it would be nice if they’d at least take a look at some of the worst, like this one and tell the government: “What. Are you nuts?”
We also need to get this country into the position where elected officials believe that pushing for longer sentences is a vote-loser. That will probably require getting the public to realize that longer sentences for non-violent offenders means significant financial cost — either in higher taxes or the reduction of spending on other favored projects. Since this administration has introduced the pseudo “no-cost” federal spending regime (unlimited borrowing and spending), it may have to happen at the state level (or when all that borrowing comes back to hit us).

A number of people have already blogged about this:
Check out this AP article by Mark Sherman:

The first reaction I have is a good one and matches the general thinking… See, another example of how the drug war corrupts. Here’s a top drug official in Guatemala who is corrupted by drug profits. At least we caught him and his deputies…
And then my years of watching the drug warriors and what they’ll do kicks in, and I look more skeptically (some may say with more paranoia).
What more does it say about Castillo?

But wait! Look at a different AP article written by Juan Carlos Llorca:

Notice the difference? (I wonder why Mark left out that critical line?) Now it makes you start to think. And all three are pleading innocent.
“…corrupt officials at all levels of government”? Sounds familiar. So what was the Guatemalan government doing?
In the NY Times:

They had corrupt drug officials and sent them here to be arrested? They wouldn’t want to arrest their own officials, huh?
Interesting.
Back to the Llorca article:

Oh, yes. That makes the DEA very happy.
I don’t know what the story is here. But there’s a whole lot that smells bad.
Update: Nice to see I’m not alone. Eric in one of my email discussion groups had similar questions.

A fascinating article in the Tucson Weekly:
Marijuana World: A look at pot: its users, its trade, its cultivation, the research and the anti-prohibition movement by RenÚe Downing.
Very nicely done.

In the current Drug War Chronicle, editor David Borden is looking for the soundbites that make it easier to quickly make the case for ending the drug war. You can never express it all in a single soundbite, but there are lots of soundbites that can be effective (based on the situation and the audience — things like “The drug war puts both drug sales and profits in the hands of criminals.” (Another variant of that for a slightly more open audience is “The drug war puts drug sales, drug safety, and drug profits in the hands of criminals.”)
David got his inspiration from the recent Drug Policy Alliance conference. Maybe even a particular session that Drug WarRant visitor Larry attended. Larry wrote me a very nice email:

Thanks, Larry. There are very effective arguments in those pages. Glad to see they’ve found an audience.
Today, however, I feel like using a different kind of soundbite. Maybe one with expletives. Some would call it alarmist or even hyperbole, but I’d say:

We need to end the drug war because it is destroying our country and our freedom.

I know I have a lot of readers from other countries. I hope they’ll bear with me for this moment. I am a patriot. I believe in my country, its constitution, and the principles of freedom which are supposed to be paramount. I will not (and may not) stand by idly when those principles are being trashed by elements of our government:
“bullet” Today’s item #1: From The Agitator (of course) comes an update on the Troy Davis case. Troy is one of those on my Drug War Victims page. He was killed in 1999, but the lawsuit is just getting started, and the information that is emerging is horrific.
First, go back to the event itself. As Radley notes:

A year earlier:

And now:

Read all of Radley’s piece. It’s shocking and does not fit the America in which I believe.
“bullet” Today’s item #2: From TChris at TalkLeft is this report in the Baltimore Sun.

America?

A reported increase in cocaine prices has naturally caused the Drug Czar to step forward and claim victory in the war on drugs and in the Colombian fiasco in particular.
But while this Knight-Ridder story, picked up by a ton of papers, repeats Walters’ bragging, it also gives the other side, with an overall sense that it’s too early to tell if this means anything.
And the Reuters article quotes Ethan in response:

If it wasn’t for the increase in efforts by a wide range of drug policy reformers showing the failures of Plan Colombia, the press would now be reporting Walters words without a rebuttal.
Little steps.