An Ohio law enforcement agency's decision to use fake drug checkpoints to search drivers and their cars for drugs has some residents wondering if it could violate the Fourth Amendment against unlawful searches and seizures.

Police in Cleveland suburb of Mayfield Heights recently posted large yellow signs along Interstate 271 that warned drivers that there was a drug checkpoint ahead, to be prepared to stop and that there was a drug-sniffing police dog in use.

There was no such checkpoint, just police officers waiting to see if any drivers would react suspiciously after seeing the signs.

Authorities say that four people were stopped, with some arrests and drugs seized. They declined to be more specific.

The Plain Dealer in Cleveland reports that some civil rights leaders and at least one person pulled over by police are questioning the tactic.

"I don't think it accomplishes any public safety goals," said Terry Gilbert, a prominent Cleveland civil rights attorney. "I don't think it's good to mislead the population for any reason if you're a government agency."

Nick Worner, a spokesman for the Cleveland office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his office will be looking further into the fake checkpoints to determine whether anyone's rights may be being violated.

Dominic Vitantonio, a Mayfield Heights assistant prosecutor, said the fake checkpoints are legal and a legitimate effort in the war on drugs.

"We should be applauded for doing this," Dominic Vitantonio said. "It's a good thing."

A 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said actual drug checkpoints are not legal and that police can randomly stop cars for just two reasons: to prevent immigrants without legal permission to be in the U.S. and contraband from entering the country and to get drunk drivers off the road.

It's unclear how that ruling would apply to a fake drug checkpoint or whether any other police department in the nation has used similar tactics.

Bill Peters, one of the four drivers pulled over as a result of the fake checkpoint, said he wonders if he was targeted because he has long, unkempt hair.

Peters, of Medina, said he was driving on the interstate when he missed his exit. He pulled over to check his phone for directions, then pulled back onto the freeway when his phone disconnected from the charger, causing him to pull over again to reconnect it, he said.

Soon after returning to the freeway, police pulled him over.

Peters said the officer asked him what kind of drugs he had in the car, saying it would be much easier to confess before other officers and a drug-sniffing dog arrived. Peters insisted he had no drugs. As promised, other officers and the dog were summoned, and Peters agreed to allow his car to be searched.

No drugs were found.

"The last time I checked, it is not against the law to pull over to the side of the road to check directions," said Peters, who added that the officer who stopped him commended him for being safety conscious.

"I see what they're doing, but I think it's kind of dangerous," Peters said. "It's one thing to do this on a 25 mph road; it's another on a busy interstate. I think it's a violation to just be pulled over and searched."

In a statement to Fox8.com, the city of Mayfield Heights defended the phony checkpoints, arguing that they help protect residents and play a role in ridding neighboring communities with drugs that are regularly transported along the interstate.

"The City of Mayfield Heights has not, and will not, violate the law or any individual’s civil rights in this, or any other, effort," the statement read.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/ohio-police-department-using-fake-drug-checkpoints/#ixzz2XsesJ83o

Wow, I am speechless. Before Obummer got elected I always said if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about, now we see Oblowme using everything he can against his political enemies.

about time you all impeach Buzzy Windrip (aka Obama)!
Really wonder what is keeping Congress,and the only thing I can come up with,is that they have just as much Dirt under the Bed!

The checkpoint fake-out has nothing to do with President Obama, and any appellate court decision on the case is just a matter of law. The Constitution merely forbids unlawful searches, or those without cause. Clearly, if a driver wildly avoids driving into an area that might have a drug check-point, then that looks like probable cause. You might interpret the law differently, and I respect that, but again, it has NOTHING to do with President Obama. It leaves me scratching my head, sometimes, to read how Cons get things so mixed up.

Note the source, Fox. It kind of says it all really.

Yup, the only legitimate news source anymore.

That's a hugely ignorant claim given Fox's long-standing history of changing stories on the fly and numerous times hardly getting any facts right at all.

I know, I know...Number one, blah, blah, blah.

still doesn't make that Crap by the Police right!

Unless you want to blame Fox for those Faux-Checkpoints!

if you give probable cause you get the search

but why is it if you lie t the police i is interfering with an
investigation

but they lie it is just doing their job


==================================

all check points should be illegal where is the probable cause

A hugely ignorant claim?

Please share the source of your claim.

True..

Indeed sir, indeed.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=Fox+news+lying+proof&oq=Fox+news+lying+proof&gs_l=hp.3..0i22i30l2.1666.4852.0.5238.20.18.0.2.2.0.123.1667.15j3.18.0....0...1c.1.19.hp.U3vW4DRhH6A

I don't expect people to do my homework, I'm sure as hell not doing yours.

Your link is not good. If you make such claims and expect others to believe them please provide a working link to the source of your claims. Otherwise your claims are invalid. We don't do home work here.

Alright, whatever...I'm not the one ignoring facts here.

Survey: NPR’s listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

In the article in the O.P. it was stated that the man gave HIS PERMISSION to the officer to search the car.

This is where the mistake is made. If you give your permission to them to search your car, they have done nothing wrong.

You have a right to remain silent. You have a right to refuse to allow a search without a warrant. If you give up those rights, then they can search your car.

Don't let them, don't be stupid. Refuse to give them permission.

How do you know they won't plant drugs in your car? If they are out to get you, don't think they won't do it.

They might search it anyway without your permission. If they do it without a warrant, it is very likely that they can't use anything they find against you.

Make sure you make it clear to them that they must have a warrant.

Ignore what?You haven't given any facts here. You have made a statement and have not backed it up with a factual link to back that up. please provide a link to back up,your claim that Fox has a longstanding history of changing stories on the fly and numerous times hardly getting any facts right at all. It is simple to do. While we wait.....

Here then, since you don't seem to understand how Google works and/or type in a simple question.

http://bit.ly/1doDyV1

I'll help make you feel even more lazy.

Not me. I thought you would have an unbiased news source. Ha! well, thanks any way. next time try posting some thing that is believable. Glad that I didn't take the time to find such dribble. Sorry that you did. In the future please spare us and post something useful and believable.