Police are allowed to stop motorists who avoid checkpoints


The Illinois Supreme court overruled an Appeals court that said making a U-turn to avoid a police checkpoint (roadblock) is not suspicious.

“A divided panel of the appellate court agreed and found that, absent any other suspicious activity, the U-turn itself did not provide specific, articulable facts that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed.”   

“The majority concluded that defendant’s motion to suppress evidence should have been granted and reversed his conviction and remanded the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.”

The State, meaning the police, appealed the ruling to the Supreme court and claimed that the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of reasonable suspicion and specifically points to:

  1. The “suspicious nature” of defendant’s “evasive maneuver”;  
  2. The proximity of the maneuver to the roadblock;  
  3. The day and time of the maneuver;  
  4. The roadblock was well marked; and,  
  5. The roadblock was not busy.

What police are really saying is:

Anyone attempting to avoid a roadblock is suspicious.
Turning around close to roadblock is suspicious.
Avoiding a roadblock at night is suspicious.
And finally, avoiding a roadblock that isn’t busy is suspicious.

The State [police] compared the defendant’s U-turn to the defendant’s “headlong flight” from police inWardlow. Sixteen years ago, the Illinois Supreme court’s “Wardlow” ruling overturned an Appellate court ruling which said police can’t stop and search (stop-and-frisk) a person simply because they’re in a high-crime area.

Thing are getting so bad in America, police have begun setting up heroin checkpoints.

“After months of advertising, one of the most brazen Police State campaigns ever conceived began in Maryland last year. Police set up rolling heroin checkpoints as a pretense to detain, question, ticket and arrest pedestrians and motorists.”

Supreme Court says a person’s “STRANGE MOVEMENTS” to avoid a police roadblock is suspicious.

“Here, we agree with the State that the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of reasonable suspicion. Defendant’s U-turn across railroad tracks just 50 feet before the roadblock is the type ofevasive behavior that is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. (a driver’s obvious attempts to evade officers is an appropriate factor in deciding reasonable suspicion);  (a person’s “strange movements” in his attempt to evade police officers contributed to a finding of reasonable suspicion).”

Supreme Court claims that making a U-turn at night is criminal!

“Also, the fact that the U-turn was made in the early morning hours of a weekend (1:15 a.m. on a Saturday) indicates more of a probability of criminal behavior…”

Defendant’s U-turn upon encountering the police roadblock was the opposite of defendant going about his business. Continuing eastbound on the highway would have been going about his business. We cannot view defendant’s evasive behavior under these circumstances as simply a refusal to cooperate. Evasive behavior and a person’s refusal to speak with an officer when an officer approaches him are not one and the same.”

Last year, I warned everyone that police think that driving from one city to another city is suspicious.

 Given that nearly every stretch of interstate is considered a drug corridor, the fact that a stop occurred on any such route is almost meaningless. Traveling on a ‘drug corridor’ cannot reasonably support a suspicion that the traveler is carrying contraband. To so hold would give law enforcement officers reasonable suspicion that every vehicle on every major—and many minor—thoroughfares throughout this country was transporting drugs.”

Judges overturned the Appeals court ruling because they’re afraid Americans would be allowed to “legally avoid” checkpoints.

Justice Thomas says “Certainly, the purpose of any checkpoint *** would be defeated if drivers had the option to ‘legally avoid,’ ignore or circumvent the checkpoint by either electing to drive through without stopping or by turning away upon entering the checkpoint’s perimeters.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that, judges don’t want to let Americans avoid checkpoints because it will cost the state revenue!

Judges think only criminals avoid checkpoints!

“First, allowing motorists to evade checkpoints undermines the justifications for having checkpoints.The people who are most likely to evade checkpoints are those with something to hide. If courts were to announce a policy that everyone is free simply to ignore checkpoints, the reality is that only law-abiding citizens would be processed.  This would undermine the very justification for checkpoints, as no one would be caught by them.”

It’s not only judges who think criminals avoid checkpoints, police everywhere think only criminals drive cars.

“Police Commander Paul Pazen claims police are spying on motorists because criminals typically use cars when committing crimes.  DDACT’s capture information about every vehicle and also collects info. about innocent car ownersWhen Pazen is asked if he works for the NSA he just laughs, the sad reality is he does indirectly. And he brags that Denver police keep EVERYONE’S license plate info. for 364 days, just ONE DAY short of a YEAR.”

The Illinois Supreme court’s attempt to justify its shredding of the Bill of Right is made more disturbing by their acknowledgment that the US Supreme Court hasn’t decided if avoiding a roadblock is suspicious.

“The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of whether evasive behavior such as avoiding a police roadblock is sufficient by itself to generate reasonable suspicion…”

Image credit: TruthChannel


5 thoughts on “Police are allowed to stop motorists who avoid checkpoints

  1. This past March, I warned everyone that judges think that not answering a cops questions at a checkpoint is suspicious.

    A Calif. Appeal court says, refusing to answer a cops unlawful questions is “unorthodox.

    “The facts indicate that Rynearson generally asserted his right against unlawful searches and seizures while the agents had difficulty determining how to respond to his unorthodox tactics.”

    The court also claimed that standing up for ones Constitutional rights is not clearly established!

    “We have not discovered nor been shown any authority supporting Rynearson’s claim that the constitutional rights he chose to stand on were clearly established. Accordingly, we conclude that these governmental officials, at worst, made reasonable but mistaken judgments when presented with an unusually uncooperative person, unusual at least in the facts described in any of the caselaw.”

  2. A free country shouldn’t have “checkpoints” anywhere.

    “A divided panel of the appellate court agreed…” ALL the tyrants agree, but you’re always told about a “divided panel”, because that maintains the illusion that someone in our government cares about your rights.

  3. “shall” or “allowed”??

    yes there is a difference

    if they are “allowed” to do so,, they are not “REQUIRED” to do so

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.