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.
Originally posted by 27jd
REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT OPERATE K9 CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL...
Originally posted by cranberrydork
Point is.....aside from motorcycles, there aren't many vehicles that aren't capable of smuggling HUMAN traffic.
Originally posted by harvib
De-regulatory legislation. Problem solved. The black market inflates prices. No more drug trafficking if the prices you could get are the same in your own Country. This solution is no secret. It is obvious and effective. However it would result in a significant loss of income for some... I wonder why it will never happen and instead we are told we must submit our selves to random and increasing detainments and questionings????
Border patrol are doing there jobs and you think your special and above the law. Sorry your not.
Originally posted by cranberrydork
Doesn't make any difference......THIS WASN'T "REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT".
Let's blow up Canada too
Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Annee
Let's blow up Canada too
Blow up Canada? What are you talking about. I think you misread my post or intended to respond to another poster who advised declaring war on Mexico. Re-read my post.
Originally posted by glevel
Originally posted by Annee
Lets Play - "You are in charge". Let's Play - "You solve the problem".
Since these drug dealing scum have and will again attack Americans I say treat them just like terrorists, go into Mexico, hunt them down and kill them before they kill more Americans, and if the Mexican Government has a problem , well then too bad. It is time we stop having our liberties eroded because of thugs that do not even live here.
Originally posted by glevel
reply to post by Annee
I will agree with me when you can point out the info that says canadians are coming across the border and killing our citizens, and when you can point to the article or source that says canadians are murdering our dea agents and our fbi agents...then I would say lets get them too, but that is not happening.
Originally posted by cranberrydork
reply to post by Annee
Give the needle a nudge....I think your record is skipping
1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564.
(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-557.
(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving patrol stops. Pp. 428 U. S. 557-560.
(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.
(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563-564.
.