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: 15
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Ah yes, I was waiting for that one. It took quite few pages to reach the "if you don't like this country, you can giiiiit out" summit. No need to move out of the country, just move to California where you can go to a doc, get a scrip, and all will be good.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 

I think that you have an askew perception because of your personal feelings on this topic and possibly the crowd you associate with. If you engage in this type of behavior, then that brings you into contact with others of a like mind, which to you makes it seem like your issue holds a majority. Basically, this is because in your slice of the world it probably is a majority. I can tell you for a fact though, that this lifestyle is a minority within the larger country as a whole.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


You were legally pulled over by BP at a check point. They legally can have a dog walk around your car because a dog sniffing your car does not violate 4th amendment. You got busted for Illegal having pot in your car.
You decide everybody else is wrong and you are right. How much do you smoke. I suggest putting it down for awhile.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Exactly, I bet he posted the same exact thing on several threads. From that posters perception of reality, he obviously feels in dire need to “get this important info out” as he feels he is in danger of some type. In reality, the whole thing reads like someone that needs serious help, not due to any real danger, but more likely due to some underlying issue (chemical/mental).



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Engage in what type of behavior? Relaxing a little on the beach during a hard earned vacation? Because I don't personally like alcohol, and because my personal choice of relaxation enhancement keeps money out of greedy pockets, I am somehow different from the rest of society? I don't blindly accept the BS our lying government feeds us, and somehow that gets transformed into me being some kind of burn-out, out of touch with reality. It really is astounding and sad the judgements that we have been conditioned to cast on each other over minor differences.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


That attitude is being a lapdog for the police state.

I dont care what he was in possession of it is against our freedom to be sniffed out by dogs for no probable cause within the borders of our state.

This type of mindset is what allows the police state to exist.

We are NOT a free nation anymore. Our system has sold us out long ago....

FREEDOM! LET IF RING!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


I wasn't pulled over BEFORE the dog searched my car, i was in a queue, and that is EXACTLY what the justices said they feared, going through the belongings of travelers WITHOUT any offense to warrant the search. Spin it how you want, and again, I don't care about your opinion of me personally.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Talk about an oxymoron of the most epic proportions..

" the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562."

Outweighs?? Outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen?

The highest court in the land, charged with interpreting the constitution, has decided that something outweighs the power of the constitution. Yet it is not deemed unconstitutional?

Anything that is considered to outweigh the constitution suggests in it's very language that it carries more weight than the constitution. It also suggests that it is beyond the judgement of the SCOTUS.

Thank you harvib for bringing this to light. To the OP, if you want to fight this battle of legal loopholes, this one is almost blindingly obvious.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


The Supreme Court Upholds Suspicionless Dog Sniffs


The reason why the Fourth Amendment limits police investigation at all is to protect people against intrusions into their private space. Police ransacking a dwelling searching for contraband will uncover all sorts of private, potentially embarrassing, information about the target of the search: material relating to his sexual practices; what books he reads; his taste in music and art; even how tidy he is.

The state has no legitimate interest in obtaining such private information about lawful activity. Accordingly, the Constitution only allows a search that reveals such information when it is an unavoidable accompaniment or component of a search that is otherwise supported by suspicion--typically "probable cause" to believe--that the search will reveal evidence of criminal conduct.

A dog sniff, however, is different. A trained police dog either alerts in the presence of illegal drugs, or does not alert in their absence. The sniff reveals no collateral private information (except perhaps to the dog, who has the good manners not to convey it to his human partners).

Thus, Justice Stevens said, the only privacy interest implicated by a dog sniff is the interest in keeping illegal activity private--and that interest is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
.


The statement by Justice Stevens here could make you scratch your head and wonder.


What is a "Search" and Why Doesn't a Dog Sniff Qualify?

Why not? To begin, under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, not all police investigative measures constitute "searches" implicating the Fourth Amendment.

To give an obvious example, if a cop on the beat observes an assault, clearly the mere act of viewing what is plain for everyone to see is not a "search." Or, to give an example closer to the facts of Caballes, if a police officer patrolling a public park smells marijuana coming from a group of teenagers smoking on a bench, that ordinary use of his olfactory senses is not a "search" either.

Under the relevant precedents, police activity only constitutes a Fourth Amendment "search" if it violates a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In our two hypothetical examples, it is not reasonable to expect privacy in activity conducted in public, where it can be seen or smelled by any passersby, including the police.

Of course, the state trooper who shepherded the police dog around Caballes's car was not a mere passerby. He specifically targeted Caballes for scrutiny. And the drugs in Caballes's trunk were not evident to the human eye or nose--or even to the nose of an untrained dog. So why didn't the dog sniff violate a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Because, according to the majority opinion of Justice Stevens, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in illegal activity.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
... i've had my vehicle searched many times... no biggie - just another brake check...


Your papers please...

My God are most people in our nation so brain-dead they dont see this as a problem?

Dude you sit there and condone getting your vehicle checked and I am against it. Something weird there and I will tell you why. I carry a Firefighters badge and I.D. So I never get searched or ticketed....a little perk the police give us for the horrors we see and deal with. Its a nice bit of respect because they know we have to deal with and give us more freedom that they give the average citizen.

Yet I am upset with this and you are not.




[edit on 5-8-2009 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 


When you are crossing the border on a highway or on a highway close enough to get to from the border you kind of fall into the same place as being at a airport. Just wait till they tell you get out of your car so I can xray you and search you shoes.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


A dog sniff might as well be an x-ray. And again, if the justice in the portion you posted truly feels this way, WHY is it NOT legal for police to set up K9 checkpoints? If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in your vehicle...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


You can try and justify it to yourself in any way that make you feel better, I suppose, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal behavior until/if ever that law is changed. Simply because you don’t agree with a law does not make that law invalid in any way shape or form. You break the law, you will pay societies penalty. If you go into a court with this story, then try and use the arguments that you have used in this thread, the judge is going to most likely go harder on you, then agree with you. As you are showing not only lack of remorse at breaking a law, but also that you habitually do so, and find nothing wrong with it.

I will however agree with the fact that the states are all now using their law enforcement agencies as a source of income, well above and beyond anything they have done in the past. It is almost getting to the point of being out of control. However, I would not expect it to get any better, as a matter of fact, I would expect just the opposite. I do not see the economy recovering from the current situation, and ever going back to the way things were, at least not in any of our lifetimes. As such the states will continue to crack down harder on everything in a bid to generate funding through their legal systems. Someone posted a good link in another thread that explained very thoroughly why the system is not going to get better, here is that link:

Chris Martenson: Crash Course




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


You lose the right being close to the border. But don't think they just do these things in border states I live in Florida and there here on the highways to driving around. The only differnce is they don't have fixed check points they pull people over.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
If you go into a court with this story, then try and use the arguments that you have used in this thread, the judge is going to most likely go harder on you, then agree with you.


I won't be talking to any judge. I will be in a room with about 30 other people who were busted that day, we will all be given a blanket fine for 400 dollars plus court fees, the judge will strike it from our record, and we will all be sent on our way. This is nothing like a real drug bust, it's a well oiled machine, apparently.



As you are showing not only lack of remorse at breaking a law, but also that you habitually do so, and find nothing wrong with it.


I have no remorse for breaking an unjust victimless law put in place SOLELY to make the rich richer. I've learned some lessons though.



I will however agree with the fact that the states are all now using their law enforcement agencies as a source of income, well above and beyond anything they have done in the past. It is almost getting to the point of being out of control. However, I would not expect it to get any better, as a matter of fact, I would expect just the opposite.


And it seems SO many are willing to bend over and take it, they can do whatever they please. You almost seem resigned to it, it's sad you don't feel compelled to fight the TRUE wrongdoings in this country.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Oh, BTW, to the person who claimed that those dogs alert via signal from their handler. That is not true. I have worked around those dogs in my airport years, and they alert on their own. They are commanded only to begin the search, but the decision to alert on a car or bag is solely up to the dog. As a matter of fact, we used to have a dog there who would alert on any bag that it smelled Snickers bars in. It made for some pretty funny situations.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 





The highest court in the land, charged with interpreting the constitution, has decided that something outweighs the power of the constitution. Yet it is not deemed unconstitutional?


Crazy huh? Possibly even more disturbing is the number of people that seem to be oblivious.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


This is what he was refering to.


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.


They seem to imply the safety of the many is more important then his personal right of privacy. The same idea behind checking passangers before they bored an airplane.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by JBA2848]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
And it seems SO many are willing to bend over and take it, they can do whatever they please. You almost seem resigned to it, it's sad you don't feel compelled to fight the TRUE wrongdoings in this country.

Actually, I disagree with much of what is going on. For example I disagree with cities here in Florida installing Red Light Cameras, then allowing a third party private company to distribute tickets, when that company has a vested interest ($$) in distributing as many tickets as possible whether valid or not. Even the Governor of the State has told them they were not allowed to install these cameras, yet the cities all put in Ordnances to allow it. They bypass the law by making it a City Ordnance rather then an actual traffic citation. They have gotten so bad, that the City I live in does not simply give out these tickets for running a red light, but even for stopping an inch in front of the white intersection line. The thing is, that I just don’t see anyway to stop what is going on. Anyone we stick up there in office pulls the same crap once the money starts flowing in, and we are never allowed to vote on anything of any real import anyway.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I can see where 27 jd is coming from. It's been deemed unconstitutional to have random drug checks through out a city. Some cities were doing this and setting the trap near exits or pulling over the people who U-turned. Who is wrong in those situations I chalk up to both parties involved. We shouldn't be dealing with check points in our country be them 10 miles or 100 miles from our borders.

I agree the law seems to have a loophole in using the border patrol agents for sniffing dogs. However the Supreme Court has ruled that search by them does not violate the 4th amendment as it does not impede on any privacy. The dog sniffing is indeed sniffing a vehicle "in plain sight" which is what the law considers ok. Had the dog been in your backyard it would be a different story, but it wasn't you were on an Interstate which is owned by the the state it is in.

I can't tell if your really young or really naive, what I can tell is you live in an area that you do not know how the game works. Either learn how to play the game or get out. I don't mean out of the country but out of the area.

You came on to ATS labeled YOUR thread "I, a US citizen was arrested" then for the first 5-6 pages redirected everyone to an article that was written by Dave Stern. Yes the Pasture that's so adamant on rights...


If the Border Patrol cannot effectively police it's section it was held to protect then it needs to be looked into. Find ways to better it's job without extending (or rather constricting) border constitutional laws. Extending the border influence is akin to adding duct tape to a leaking dam. Coming on here whining that you were caught only fuels their fire.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join