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.

 

I, a U.S. citizen, was arrested by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent today

page: 13
45
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Bowen v. United States, 422 U.S. 916 (1975)


Petitioner was convicted of federal drug offenses based on evidence seized in January, 1971, when Border Patrol officers stopped his camper pickup at a traffic checkpoint on California Highway 86, about 36 air miles from the Mexican border. The officers first determined that petitioner was a United States citizen, then asked him to open the camper so that they could search for concealed aliens. When petitioner opened the door, one officer noticed a strong odor of marihuana. He entered the camper and discovered approximately 356 pounds of the drug. A subsequent search of the passenger compartment produced a number of benzedrine tablets.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitioner's conviction, rejecting his argument that the search was unlawful. 462 F.2d 347 (1972). A petition for certiorari was pending when we announced our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of roving patrols to search vehicles, with neither a warrant nor probable cause, at points removed from the border and its functional equivalents. We vacated the judgment in petitioner's case and remanded for reconsideration in light of Almeida-Sanchez. 413 U.S. 915 (1973).

The Court of Appeals reheard the case en banc and held, in a sharply divided opinion, that the principles of Almeida-Sanchez applied to searches conducted at traffic checkpoints, as well as searches conducted by roving patrols. The Court nevertheless affirmed petitioner's conviction, holding that Almeida-Sanchez would not be applied to invalidate searches that occurred prior to the date of that decision. 500 F.2d 960 (1974). We
.


This is from 1971




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Your story kind of reminds me of a funny thing that happened around here a while back. Driving down the highway one night, there was a trafic sign set up that said drug checkpoint ahead. There was one little country road you could turn off on between the sign and checkpoint. Only the checkpoint was down that country road instead.
They all got searched and delt with the same way you descibe.

I never heard of a druggy who liked getting busted.

You make it kind of impossible to get on board with the whole "down with the authorities" bandwagon this time dude. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Luckily in Massachusetts it's no longer a misdemeanor it's a civil crime. But in any case why have something if you don't want to get arrested for it??? I mean I totally agree that type of search is illegal but I totally disagree that your completely innocent because clearly you were disobeying a law. What would be the difference if you drove by a parked K-9 unit, the dog barks and the cop pulls you over? Pretty much zero except it's a state/local cop and not the BP. I suggest you travel next time without anything, especially if you knew of these type of check points.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 





(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.


I like how it is admittedly unconstitutional. I have said it before and I will say it again: if your rights can be taken away at will then we don't have rights only privileges. So much for inalienable...





[edit on 5-8-2009 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
[edit on 5-8-2009 by alien]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
[edit on 5-8-2009 by alien]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
[edit on 5-8-2009 by alien]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
[edit on 5-8-2009 by alien]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
[edit on 5-8-2009 by alien]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


That was decided in 1976 supreme court. So the arguement that some new law is what got him in trouble is not true.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


I understood your point, did you understand mine?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Worse things going on in the UK.
Not as far as I know....No illegal Checkpoints over here luckily.If Americans don't oppose these Nazi style checkpoints soon they will be all over the states.The Border Patrol should be at the border and no where else!!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by jd140
I don't sympathize for any criminal.


Like I said, you're probably a "criminal" too. If you tell me you've never broken the law, you will be the liar here.



I'm not going to read anymore to prove to myself you aren't lying so if you have a piece that says they arrest you then show it.



Rather than place the blame on his daughter, he paid $1,600 in fines, and was embarrassed recently when the arrest showed up in a background check while he was trying to rent a house. He was allowed to move in, but lamented of his new rap sheet: "It just sucks. Period."


Here ya go. Not that it will matter to you anyway, you've already made your bias clear, it just sucks that you are one of the people who are tasked with defending our constitution...you have no business there.



I have been given a speeding ticket or two. The differance between me and you though is that I didn't whine like a baby that I was treated unfairly.

Thats the differance between a criminal and a man. A criminal makes excuses and a man takes responsibility.


I reread your article just to see if I owed you an apology and I don't. A small amount of canabis gets you a citation a large amount ends up with you being carted to jail in cuffs. Says so right in your article.

So either you are lying about being arrested or you are lying about what really happened to you. Either way you are a liar.

To everyone else who doesn't agree with me.

I have recieved one very hateful U2U that is severly against T&C already due to my opinion. I will not tolerate anymore. Consider this your warning.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I will never blindly obide by a law which is in my view ethically wrong, just because i happen to have had no choice where I was born.

What happened to you was bad.
I am not shocked in the slightest people on here are making sweeping neanderthal judgements about what makes a man. Wow.

This thread has shown me quite a lot about controlling the underlings. No wonder the so called NWO can get away with anything it wants.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 





Thats the differance between a criminal and a man. A criminal makes excuses and a man takes responsibility.


In addition a man defends his rights...

And BTW if he was restrained he was arrested.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Thats the differance between a criminal and a man. A criminal makes excuses and a man takes responsibility.


You're a fool, and I've made it perfectly clear that I was NOT making excuses for my personal actions. You can easily sit behind your keyboard as usual, and question the manhood of others.



So either you are lying about being arrested or you are lying about what really happened to you. Either way you are a liar.


Once again, i was arrested, i was read my rights and must appear in court, I don't give a rats @ss if you believe me. Your standard issue opinion means nothing to me, drone.



I have recieved one very hateful U2U that is severly against T&C already due to my opinion. I will not tolerate anymore. Consider this your warning.


Make sure you're REAL clear that U2U didn't come from me, as it seems you are directing your empty little threat towards me. I haven't U2U'd you a thing, internet tough guy.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848

That was decided in 1976 supreme court. So the argument that some new law is what got him in trouble is not true.


I was reading some of those court cases.

Apparently Border Patrol officers are under Federal jurisdiction and are also legally Customs Officers.

As Customs Officers - - they have legal rights to search for contraband - with some restrictions.

I just thought this was interesting.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


The border control is not a illegal alien police force. I guess many people would probly think that but they are incharge of protecting the border from people or cargo and contraband.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Annee
 


ONCE AGAIN, regular law enforcement CANNOT set up K9 checkpoints. It is NOT constitutional, and this "changing of the hands" provides a loophole to search EVERYBODY'S car who passes through. How is that NOT sinking in to your head? REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT OPERATE K9 CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL...REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT OPERATE K9 CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL...REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT OPERATE K9 CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Has it gotten in there yet?


LOL, just LOL.

Once again, the Boarder Patrol has an official mandate to do the 'K-9' checks. They can have 3 or more dogs at any station, each tasked with a different 'hit', and legally check any vehicle that comes through their stop.

Things I know the dogs can check for:

Explosives, and likely they will key to the scents generated by firearms.
Food items, fruit and veggies, meat products.
Drugs.
Chemicals used in making drugs, & or chemical weapons.
Poisons
Possibly Biological Weapons

Not to mention at each 'physical' station, you will pass under radiation detectors and possibly chemical sniffers for NBC weapons. A well equipped 'road team' likely has a Geiger counter among other detection items.

And each one of those dogs is trained to detect different stuff.

They as an law enforcement arm of the Federal Government, have the responsibility and most of all, the right to stop and search any vehicle in the pursuit of their duties. That right or responsibility to stop and inspect vehicles, is there irregardless of if they use dogs or not.

However, they use dogs for detection at such stations or even at non-fixed check points, because the dogs can let them screen more cars and other vehicles faster.

If they bloody well wanted too or if they a suspected major threat is coming through the check point; they can stop and search each and every vehicle until they find it. The dogs are there to allow them to do their job with efficiency, and to not keep the 'innocent and harmless' people tied up too long.

This sort of 'checks' are common place and normal. Any road that comes out of Mexico and connects to a highway doing deeper into the the States will at one point or another encounter a fixed Boarder Patrol Check Point. That way if a drug runner or illegal person tries to come though, and has some how missed getting tagged at a entry port; they get caught then.

You do not have to go out of the country to be checked by a Boarder Patrol Agent, you only have to pass through an area where they have an operational mandate! And last that I checked, Arizona borders Mexico! In fact it has the second largest shared boarder with Mexico, (seconded to Texas.) Which firmly places a -large- portion of Arizona under their operational mandate.

I do not need to repost the court cases, that other folks have posted again, where the Federal Courts have upheld the Boarder Patrols use of K-9's in the performance of their duties.

The use of K-9's to help the Boarder Patrol in the pursuit of their duties, has been established as a matter of efficiency and it has proven to be effective in the case of stopping illegal materials, which also includes pot, from coming into the country.

The fact that there is so much drug trafficing, to where a local government needed to 'extend' a legal courtesy to the Boarder Patrol in that region, in relation to their discretion to issue 'fines' and or arrest criminals; is much better than having to park a rotating shift of police or state troopers there to do the same job.

Face it OP, they could have been forced to hold you there until the police had time to collect you, instead they arrested you and gave you a citation. Then they just sent you on your way, with what effectively is a slap on the wrist.

Instead, your 'mistake', only kept you there long enough to be fined. Hell, they could have called the police or state troopers to pick you up of of spite; and just as legally been justified to do so; given that you were caught with pot. Sure it would have wasted the police or troopers time considering it evidently was 'small stuff,' but they still would have a justified reason for doing so.

You should be writing a thank you note to the Boarder Patrol Agents there for being so damned nice to you.

Instead you get on ATS and whine about how you got busted. How the 'man' is at fault for your law breaking, how it's illegal for the Boarder Patrol Agents to use the resources allocated to them.

The Boarder Patrol has a Mandate given to them by the Federal Government to protect our boarders. The State Troopers or the Police do not carry the same mandate as the Boarder Patrol, forget trying to compare the two, they are tasked differently and they have to follow different ordinances and statutes.

So OP, you screwed up, your blaming the Boarder Patrol for doing their job is the height of stupidity. Trying to paint the Boarder Patrol as evil, or operating as if they were 'skimming' money from the fines generated is just as stupid.

Just to make it utterly clear to you.

The Boarder Patrol does not operate under the same rules as the Police or the State Troopers.

That means that they can use dogs to detect pot or even full inspections of any vehicle, even without the dogs, in the pursuit of their Lawful Duties as dictated by the Federal Government.

Crying about how they used dogs to bust you, when other agencies may or may not be able to, doesn't change anything.

Their operational mandate says they can use dogs and other resources in the performance of their duties.

AND if you have not figured it out:

The high courts of the land Say they can.

You are wrong on so many levels that it defies credulity.

You, by now ,should know that there is a 'huge' difference between what a Federally Mandated Organization can do, as opposed to a State Mandated Organization. You also by now, should know that the Federal Courts say they can use dogs in the course of their duties. You also by now, should know just how big of an area of the USA falls under their Operational Mandate.

You should also know you got off light.

You screwed up, pay the fine and get over it.

M.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by Moshpet]

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Moshpet]




top topics



 
45
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join