It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CheckpointUSA: Gestapo Internal Checkpoints Right Here in America

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 



Ya know, its funny... scary really...

THATS THE SAME EXCUSE THAT THE NAZIS USED TO JUSTIFY THEIR CHECKPOINTS!

And its the same DHS officials that refuse to secure the border that are the ones running these checkpoints.


Sorry guys, i dont feel the need for internal checkpoints. Checkpoints at border crossings? Sure. Securing the border where its wide open? Absolutely! Making it harder for illegal to get jobs? Maybe, its certainly a better deterrent than random checkpoints.

But harassing innocent americans with NO PROBABLE CAUSE and detaining them at SUSPICIONLESS CHECKPOINTS inside their own country... NO!

[edit on 2/8/2009 by sp00n1]




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by sp00n1
 


I was wondering when someone was going to travel down the Nazi route. Kudos!



But harassing innocent americans with NO PROBABLE CAUSE and detaining them at SUSPICIONLESS CHECKPOINTS inside their own country... NO!


How are do you suppose one goes about ascertaining who is an innocent American and who isn't? Surely, it's not as simple as just looking at a person. At some point, question comes into play to separate the sheaf from the wheat.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 



Originally posted by maria_stardust
So, by your logic...


I didn't use logic. I quoted the source of the actual law.


Originally posted by maria_stardust
So, by your logic anyone can refuse to answer a federal law enforcement officer's line of questioning at a check point and be granted immediate release. If this is the case, then all check points would be deemed moot, would they not?


In the Supreme Court's own words:




...we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant.

The principal protection of Fourth Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop.
See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 24-27; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 881-882. We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975). And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 882.

Link.




Originally posted by maria_stardust
Seriously, should DHS bypass questioning people who appear to be Caucasian and concentrate their efforts on ethnic minorities? Should they only stop people who appear to be Hispanic? Where does one draw the line as to who is questioned and who isn't?


I'm not sure what the law holds on this. The wikipedia entry does not provide an appropriate legal citation, even though it says it can be done.

I'm inclined to say no.

Personally, I would not think "apparent" ethnicity at an IMPROMPTU checkpoint would satisfy the probable cause standard.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for this individual. He refused to answer a question put forth by a federal law enforcement officer, and he was lucky he wasn't detained or arrested for failure to comply. This guy's attitude came across as smug, obtuse, and seemingly above the law.


No, what we have here is a brave individual willing to put principal to the test - yes, on a small point, but that's where change always begins - sitting down on a bus, refusing to pay an unfair tax on tea - saying: "this far, and no further!"

The officers' (who, did act politely, I will grant) actions are currently 'legal', as interpreted, under court decision in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. There are fine legal points of dispute, however. That does not change the fact that what this video shows is, indisputably, arbitrary interrogation and attempted seizure without a priori cause.

It is worth reading Justices Brennan and Marshall's opinion, in the aforementioned case:


This defacement of Fourth Amendment protections is arrived at by a balancing process that overwhelms the individual's protection against unwarranted official intrusion by a governmental interest said to justify the search and seizure. But that method is only a convenient cover for condoning arbitrary official conduct, for the governmental interests relied on as warranting intrusion here are the same as those in Almeida-Sanchez and Ortiz, which required a showing of probable cause for roving-patrol and fixed checkpoint searches, and Brignoni-Ponce, which required at least a showing of reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts to justify roving-patrol stops. Absent some difference in the nature of the intrusion, the same minimal requirement should be imposed for checkpoint stops.
...
There is no principle in the jurisprudence of fundamental rights which permits constitutional limitations to be dispensed with merely because they cannot be conveniently satisfied. Dispensing with reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to stopping and inspecting motorists because the inconvenience of such a requirement would make it impossible to identify a given car as a possible carrier of aliens is no more justifiable than dispensing with probable cause as prerequisite to the search of an individual because the inconvenience of such a requirement would make it impossible to identify a given person in a high-crime area as a possible carrier of concealed weapons.
...
The cornerstone of this society, indeed of any free society, is orderly procedure. The Constitution, as originally adopted, was therefore, in great measure, a procedural document. For the same reasons the drafters of the Bill of Rights largely placed their faith in procedural limitations on government action. The Fourth Amendment's requirement that searches and seizures be reasonable enforces this fundamental understanding in erecting its buffer against the arbitrary treatment of citizens by government. But to permit, as the Court does today, police discretion to supplant the objectivity of reason and, thereby, expediency to reign in the place of order, is to undermine Fourth Amendment safeguards and threaten erosion of the cornerstone of our system of a government, for, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter reminded us, "[t]he history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the history of procedure."


Now, consider that the only way in which new Court decisions are arrived at is by the consideration of cases referred to by lower courts. Cases that wouldn't exist if everyone simply bowed their heads to what they perceived as unjust. Also consider that the man in this video has taken his cases as far as the Ohio Supreme Court, and is apparently willing to take them further. Do you still consider him 'obtuse'?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by loam
 


The U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte case cited is from 1976. While this case may still hold some validity (unless you're a barrister and well versed in law, how would we know), a great deal has happened to our nation since then regarding the issues of immigration and national security.


Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism. On March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service and assumed its duties. In doing so, it divided the enforcement and services functions into two separate and new agencies: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services. Additionally, the border enforcement functions of the INS, the Customs Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service were consolidated into a new agency under DHS: Customs and Border Protection. The Federal Protective Service falls under Immigration and Customs Enforcement.


link

If I'm not mistaken DHS can set up border patrol check points as far as 100 miles inland. It's really not that far considering that the U.S. is fairly expansive.


Personally, I would not think "apparent" ethnicity at an IMPROMPTU checkpoint would satisfy the probable cause standard.


I would certainly hope not. It would be a sad turn of events if these officers were forced to resort to racial profiling in order to fulfill their duties. If people are questioned at random at these checkpoints (I'm not sure if they're required to question everyone or not), then these people have an obligation to cooperate with these officers.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Almost every week the Orange, CA police department has a checkpoint. They even have stopped calling them DUI check points. They will ask for your license and registration. If you can not produce them they will pull you out of traffic and search your vehicle.

CA also has a law for emissions that allows a police officer to pull a car over and check for 'emissions' equipment. They can look under the hood, the trunk, the inside of the vehicle, under the vehicle, over the vehicle and anywhere they choose. The CHP, Orange and San Diego police use this law to search vehicles. They can, even without suspicion, do these searches and write you a ticket that requires you to drive home immediately and then be searched further until you are allowed to drive again. They have used this to block off entire strip malls and check vehicles one by one without cause. The courts will not allow a constitutional argument. They refuse to let someone plead at arraignment if they try, thereby forcing the search without arguing its merits.

My point is, one question from a DHS rolling stop is the least of our worries. There are far more invasive things happening in our communities.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by GTORick]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 



Originally posted by maria_stardust
The U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte case cited is from 1976. While this case may still hold some validity (unless you're a barrister and well versed in law, how would we know), a great deal has happened to our nation since then regarding the issues of immigration and national security.




Well, if you're asking me if I have shepardized the case. No, I haven't. But I have no reason to believe further qualifications of the 4th Amendment on this subject.

Remember, the officers let the citizen go, which leans in favor of the position that the case likely controls.


Originally posted by maria_stardust


Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism. On March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service and assumed its duties. In doing so, it divided the enforcement and services functions into two separate and new agencies: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services. Additionally, the border enforcement functions of the INS, the Customs Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service were consolidated into a new agency under DHS: Customs and Border Protection. The Federal Protective Service falls under Immigration and Customs Enforcement.


link


None of that has anything to do with the standards that must be applied with respect to their responsibilities.


Originally posted by maria_stardust
If I'm not mistaken DHS can set up border patrol check points as far as 100 miles inland. It's really not that far considering that the U.S. is fairly expansive.


It doesn't really matter is they set them up in Kansas. They still need probable cause or consent to question and detain you concerning your legal status.


Originally posted by maria_stardust
(I'm not sure if they're required to question everyone or not)


I have some experience with these inner checkpoints in Arizona myself. They question every driver of a vehicle-- not necessarily every passenger.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I understand the need to point out checkpoints such as this one and how they subtly go over certain laws or even amendments to 'get their job done'. If allowed to continue, their influence over the individual will continue to grow to the point where we would have a problem on our hands.

It was apparent in the video though, that these men were just trying to do their job. There was no hidden agenda these officers were trying to perpetrate. We have to remember, they are looking for men and women who don't have the constitution protecting them; illegal immigrants.

I definitely have conflicting opinions regarding this video. Nice find.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Ian McLean
 


No doubt, displays of civil disobedience have in many ways pushed our nation forward, be it Rosa Parks, anti-war protests or peaceful demonstrations. Such activities are an effective way to counter balance social injustices. However, I found this individual to be anything but civil or respectful in his demeanor. He was purposely antagonistic, and obviously itching for a confrontation. Fortunately, he failed to draw these officers into situation that he could turnaround and deem as oppressive.

So, yes, this individual is most certainly obtuse in the utterly stupid sense of the word.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust

How are do you suppose one goes about ascertaining who is an innocent American and who isn't? Surely, it's not as simple as just looking at a person. At some point, question comes into play to separate the sheaf from the wheat.





Duh, its called the burden of proof. Innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!

Every American is INNOCENT unless there is evidence that they have committed a crime!!

Innocent people dont have to prove themselves innocent!! The burden is on THE STATE to prove that the are guilty of some wrongdoing! Unless they have PRoBABLE CAUSE they have NO RIGHT to bother you. ITS CALLED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!

Due process and the rule of law!

Its clear that discussing this with you is pointless because you are WOEFULLY ignorant of the laws that govern our society.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I have a question that isn't really related to the legality of these checkpoints.

Is there any statistical information on how effective these inland immigration checkpoints are? Like numbers of illegals detained, contraband or drugs seized, etc...

I had a look but I couldn't find anything on them.

Also, are these fixed checkpoints and are they across the northern US also or just the south, where the flow of illegal immigrants is a much more serious problem.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Not really, if he pulled this . . . stuff at other check points, it'd be noted in their log books an passed on to the next shift.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


As far as the Officers know, he could've been a (Sorry for the possible misspelling) coyote smuggling in illegals and the best way to find out is stopping an questioning. Right?



[edit on 8-2-2009 by Chance321]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Keep in mind too that ALL vehicles passing the border now are recorded by license plate into a database. They know exactly who comes in and out of the country and how many times. Some people consider that an illegal search as well.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 


You are of course completely correct. However, the government breaks this law all the time. See my above post about the CA emissions law and the right it gives LE WITHOUT suspicion.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WisdomInChains
 


United States v. Martinez-Fuerte establishes that such stops are legal only with consent of those being stopped or with probable cause. More recent Supreme Court cases have watered-down probable cause to "reasonable suspicion", but lacking reasonable suspicion, consent is required in a search. Verbal questioning is considered a search, and answering implies consent. You do have a right to remain silent.

About DUI stops, have you ever noticed that any local DUI stopped is advertised in the local newspaper? There's a good reason for that. DUI checkpoints are only legal if you give consent, or display reasonable suspicion. Posting the stop in the newspaper in advance satisfies the legal principle of due notice, and as such, should you encounter a DUI checkpoint and continue on your way through said checkpoint, your consent is implied. Making a public notice of the checkpoint in advance allows you to not give consent, by choosing an alternative travel route.

More generally, whatever happened to a public servant being just that, a public SERVANT? And not a public Master? You have only the rights that you are aware of, and that you exercise. A government will always be willing to take whatever right one permits it to take. The question is, how much is enough, and where do you draw the line?

Kudos to this fine citizen in the video, he never gave consent to being detained, and never wavered in his conviction to exercise his rights. The stop itself is legal, not permitting him to leave without answering their questions is not.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 


Actually you are wrong

In Terry vs Ohio, only "Reasonable Suspicion" is needed in order to stop and question.

Also

The Burden on the state for the detention and or search of a vehicle falls far less than that covered in the 4th Amendment.

Before stating someone is Woefully anything, I suggest brushing up some.

Semper



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 



Originally posted by GAOTU789
Is there any statistical information on how effective these inland immigration checkpoints are? Like numbers of illegals detained, contraband or drugs seized, etc...


I don't know the precise answer to your question, but I suspect that if you had the ability to check any random restaurant, lawn care or construction company, or office cleaning crew you'd get an answer that says not very effective.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean

Originally posted by zooplancton
the guy taking the video just managed to just waste everyone's time

I'd just like to point out the irony of your signature:


"a coward is someone who blindly does what they're told without questioning the morality, legality or constitutionality of what they're being told to do."


The guy who made this video has 'moxy'. If I were stuck behind him in line, I'd think it well worth the time, and blame the DHS for not being able to better route traffic.


i evaluate each situation as it arises.
something as trite as a border check doesn't flip my citizen rule book on.
other scenarios yes. this scenario, sorry.

edit: added comma deleted period.



[edit on 2/9/2009 by zooplancton]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Your position is a grotesque insult to American political values.



Now there is an oxymoron. American Political Values. When is the last time anyone or anything related to politics had values? My position is I don't want my wife, kids, neighbors, hard working honest americans, etc...raped, robbed, murdered, found jobless because of law breaking scumbags coming to this country illegally. And are ONLY form of slowing down the FLOOD are these border patrol agents and their checkpoints. I see the reality of illegal immigration EVERY day...you DO NOT! If you seen first hand what I see, you would understand. But like most you only know your little bubble...where nothing has touched you...YET! Wait till your phone rings, an officer/coroner tells you to come to the morgue and identify your wife, husband, child...tells you they were brutily murdered by a mexican gang member because they wore a color the gang didn't like. And when you ask if they caught the guy, they say NOPE...sorry pal...he ran back to mexico and his buddies who are here illegally told us to F-off that they don't talk to pigs or anyone else...so the death of your loved one is basically tough s---! Have a nice day.

Wait till that day...I lived it...I as an officer had to endure that crap and watch an AMERICAN family lose their minds while WE couldn't do squat....so go ahead....say what you want...in a PERFECT world/country your ideas would be great....but come to my/our world and see whats really happening on the streets of OUR nation....then tell me the retard with the camera has the right idea!!!!!!!




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join