Nebraska: Just Thinking of the Children

On I-80 in Nebraska we passed temporary signs of the “road construction ahead” sort, but these said “drug dog in operation” and “police drug check point ahead.”

As it turned out, there were no cops or dogs ahead. But if Nebraska is using its limited resources to stop traffic on the interstate to randomly search for drugs, then I think the state has forfeited any claim to being fiscally conservative. And Nebraska’s conservatives might want to give some thought to what constitutionalism means.

Unsurprisingly, I’m not the only one bothered by this.

About James Hanley

James Hanley is former Associate Professor of Political Science at Adrian College and currently an independent scholar.
This entry was posted in Laws-Damned Laws-and Statists and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Nebraska: Just Thinking of the Children

  1. Matty says:

    Government so small it can fit in your glovebox.

  2. Chances are, the signs are meant to cause those with drugs to quickly exit the interstate. The cops are waiting at the bottom of the ramp.

  3. Matty says:

    That would make sense, ahead doesn’t have to mean on the same road. Thinking about it though is ‘took the exit after the drugs sign’ probable cause to search a car? Or is the war on drugs exempt from such things?

  4. J@m3z Aitch says:

    Matty, it’s an established principle that war limits the Constitution’s reach. And I’m pretty sure the war on drugs is the only congressional declaration of war since WWII, so….

  5. Matty says:

    Well in fairness drugs did bomb Pearl Harbour

  6. AMW says:

    You appear to be on a road trip, Dr. Hanley. What sights have you been seeing?

  7. lancifer666 says:


    While you were hear you read my “The Onion’s, Our Dumb Century” while “reposing” in my “library”.

    One of my favorite fake headlines (above a picture of Clinton era “Drug Czar” Gen. Barry McCafferty signing terms of surrender to two stoners with a bong),


  8. lancifer666 says:

    Uh, in the above post “hear” should of course be “here”.

  9. J@m3z Aitch says:


    Daughter #2 was in LA for the summer with grandparents, and my father-in-law gave us his old car for daughter #1, so we’re driving back home. I would have called you, but due to housework with Lance (upcoming post) while the rest of the the family went ahead, I was only there a couple very busy days.

    We drove up PCH to San Francisco to show the kids our d haunts, had an admissions tour at Mills College for daughter #1, spent a night at my brother’s house near Reno, then hauled ass across country to make my clan’s annual camping trip in Indiana, where I am currently sitting on a picnic table under a canopy to avoid the driving rain. ;)

  10. ppnl says:

    Either Popehat or Volokh Conspiracy I think recently did post on the police putting out fake signs and then searching cars that appear to be trying to avoid the stops.

    Now as I remember (Not sure and didn’t find the post with a quick search) they can stop and check alcohol if they either stop everyone or stop randomly. They cannot search for drugs at all without probable cause. The theory is that if you seek to avoid the fake drug search that is probable cause for a drug search. As I remember there are some cases where that did not stand in court.

Comments are closed.