http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCXzqgD99o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=RgnnUskbcVI&feature=endscreen
Printable View
Crazy Pastor Sanders Anderson, he is always looking for trouble... haha
Did I see border bob in one of those videos? I think he was the guy who was under the umbrella...
I'm in a couple checkpoint videos, but not these. They are painful to watch though. Mostly because the patrol agents don't know the answer to that question. "Am I being detained?"Quote:
Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
"Yes you are."
b.b.
Border Bob. see you don't coment on the more serious threads about LEA, but you post in this one. hmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by BorderBob
If a person has broken no law, and is not under investigation, what authority does LEO's have to stop search and demand identification?
Thought we lived in America, 4th amendment? 5th amendment?
What right do you have to search any vehicle at anytime and to demand a persons identification?This isnt Nazi Germany.
The idea that our Govt is using 'terrorism' as a pretext to stop, interrogate, harass and search people as they drive down the road, is pretty damn scary if you ask me.
Ya know, as a nation, we were told that 9/11 occurred because the terrorists hated our freedoms.
So 10 years later, what did america do? They got rid of all those freedoms.
BS. I would love to hear how you, a border patrol agent, can detain someone on a checkpoint on the 8 Highway in California.Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderBob
There is no underlying cause for these people to be questioned. It's a borderline 'consensual encounter' by the sheer fact of the check point. Without suspicion of something you would not be able to detain this person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...artinez-Fuerte (for the layman)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../543/case.html (for those interested in the actual decision)
Checkpoints are established for immigration purposes and have been upheld time and time again by the USSC. What you typically have with these checkpoint "activists" are individuals who would never be suspected of being illegal aliens but who posture in ways designed to provoke a response from Patrol Agents.
They usually get it. But as I pointed out earlier, we can and WILL detain you for immigration purposes until that purpose is met. How long it takes usually is determined by the driver of the vehicle.
(full disclosure, I am not a Border Patrol Agent, but have worked several checkpoints while TDY to Arizona)
b.b.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderBob
see. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States.
Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant's automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent. On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are ''aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion'' that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is ''modest'' and the law enforcement interests served are significant. Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.
So I am a white male riding a motorcycle through the checkpoint. My tags are current and I speak perfect english. I refuse to answer what my nationality is and it's impossible for me to be transporting individuals.
What cause due you have to detain me? Activist or not, you referenced the video and made a comment that one could infer that you claim the ability to detain said person in the video. I would like to know the basis of your claim to 'yes you are'...
Your case is mentioned in Martinez-Fuerte as it was decided after. It did not invalidate the checkpoints. Nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
To your motorcycle scenario, extremes are fun but don't further discussion. You could yourself be an illegal alien transporting yourself. Checkpoints are not limited to the transportation of illegal aliens by others. Your being a white male does not prohibit you from being an illegal alien either. In fact, I saw many Mexican nationals that could pass for European white males. And since the first question from a checkpoint officer concerns your nationality, your perfect English would likely only be an attempt to articulate your misplaced idea that the stop is improper.
I didn't watch these videos, like I said, I have seen a bunch, been in a couple. The law is clear and tested.
b.b.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderBob
So you're saying you would be able to detain me on the suspicion that I am an illegal alien? That's rich.
I have yet to see anything that would lead me to think your comment is nothing but puffing out your chest. And therein lies the rub. I dislike knucklehead activists like the people in these videos. However, based on your comments they sadly server a purpose as LE seems to think they can take overbearing measures like you have illustrated.
In the example I provided there is no reason for you to detain me. Not answering questions SHOULD NOT be a suspicious activity. There are hundreds of perfectly good reasons why I should not have to answer your questions to make your job easier.
Sadly this is a situation of two wrongs (ego and activism) do not make a right.
Says you...Quote:
Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
I'm not going to get into a long winded "what if" discussion on checkpoints. They serve a role and they are effective. The law is clear and tested (did I say that already) Checkpoint activists are typically knuckleheads, out to prove a point but as I said before, misplaced in their knowledge of the law. Most people, particularly those living in that region, understand and appreciate the work being done.
No chest puffing involved.
b.b.
That kid needs to get punched in the face. Hard. "Is this Nazi Germany"... Shut the F*** up.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonym