v. Andrews, 600 F.2d 563, 566-67 (6th Cir.1979) (“[0]ur experience with DEA agent testimony ... makes us wonder whether there exists any city in the country which a DEA agent will not characterize as either a major narcotics distribution center or a city through which drug couriers pass on their way to a major narcotics distribution center.”). Indeed, the justification is used so often by the government, that it becomes difficult to figure out what urban area is not a “source city.” See Akram, 165 F.3d at 459 n. 4 (Guy, J., dissenting) (“Every urban area in the country is a source city. This is entitled to little or no weight in my view, unless the person stopped just came from someplace like Medellin, Colombia.”); see also United States v. Townsend, 305 F.3d 537, 543-44 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The characterization of travels — even
holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning holding travel from chicago a source city to columbus a destination city was not indicative of reasonable suspicion in case where passengers were nervous lacked vehicle registration and did not know their destina tion address holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract