posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:06 PM
8 USC Section 1357 (USC = United States Code)
"within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of
the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the United States and any
railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a
distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to
have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose
of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens
into the United States;"
8 C.F.R. § 287.1 Definitions (CFR = Code of Federal Regulations)
(a)(2)Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external
boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE,
or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
Case law has held that warrantless searches of vehicles, is sometimes permissible, due to the highly mobile nature of a vehicle. Basically, after
providing proper identification, the preacher would have been within his rights to leave...without his vehicle, if the officers had required the
search of his vehicle.
It is tiring to read all of the comments indicating a "violation of constitutionl rights", with absolutely no citation of the law on which they base
their accusation. Here is the law permitting the Border Patrol Agents to conduct check points. Why does everyone ignore the reason for the check
points? To prevent criminal activity. To prevent crimes against the United States of America. You are the USA.
I won't comment on the second video, which purports an assault occurred, with the only evidence being the preacher's accusations. However, at what
point in the first video were his "rights violated"? He cites the Fourth Amendment... " The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Did an unreasonable
search occur? Would an unreasonable search have occurred if he had followed their requests? The odds are astoundingly against that.
His video appears to show the check point is permanent one, obvious from the structures. If so, being from the area, and having probably traveled the
same route to his original destination, he was well aware it was there and intended to be a problem from the start. Had he merely rolled down his
window and answered couple of harmless questions, he would have been on his way.
I do not advocate the abuse of authority by our law enforcement. However the only abuse here was by the driver, upon the officers. Just as with all of
humanity, there are a few bad apples in law enforcement. Just as with all of humanity, they are the minority. Its just that the jerks stick out in our
minds. Like this guy.
I always ask people to consider this: if the person who had just murdered your family were traveling this same route, wouldn't you want the officers
to have the opportunity to observe possible evidence of that crime? Or would you prefer they just let him/her speed on by, out of fear they might be
accused of "violating someone's rights" if they did their job.
"Reasonable" works both ways.