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

page: 24
45
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I gotta say - on the open highway - especially near the border - I do not have any problem with these check points. They have been there for 20 years - and I have been stopped only once - then told to drive on.

If they start coming after me on my property and in my own home - - that will not be OK.

This reminds me of the Watts riots. My friend lived in the middle of it. The National Guard - fully armed - was stationed on every corner. She said it was scary - - but so thankful they were there.

I'm sure there must be something Idealistically wrong with that too.




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by juan_galto
 


Then why would they need to deputize the BP agents in order to detain U.S. citizens?


How many times do you want this answered?

Border Patrol fully staffed vs Police under staffed.

And it is not to detain U.S. citizens - - they are equal opportunity detainers.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





I choose my Right to a safe environment.


You do not have this right. Not even "God" (used in a philosophical sense not a dogmatic one) granted you this right.

However you do have certain unalienable rights according to the founders. You do yourself an extreme disservice to your desire for a "safe environment" when you concede that you must allow others to protect you in exchange for your compliance.




What exactly would you have American citizens do? Wear an armband?


How about a gold star.




. . . . stay tuned to our broadcast as we circle back to the illegal use of dogs smelling drugs in your car. Oh - wait - the dogs are legal - the drugs are not.


I have not once made the dog argument or tried to argue that the "law" doesn't state certain plants to be illegal. My argument is about the detainment of citizens. Unfortunately it is people like you that will state "that the law is the law" as things continue to progress. Will random house searches be ok with you. Sure it will as long as someone tells you that it is for your safety and that it is the "law". Never mind trying to confirm their accuracy.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That question, Annee, was meant for a poster who stated the Border Patrol has always had the authority to detain and arrest U.S. citizens, but if that were the case, they wouldn't need to be deputized to do so. And the man in the youtube video who refused to answer any of their questions, and instead grilled them would NOT have driven away.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





If they start coming after me on my property and in my own home - - that will not be OK.


But is people like you that support the acquisition of such jurisdiction. If you want to avoid others from having the legal authority to be able to come after you on your own property with out reason or cause then you must be opposed to them gaining the jurisdiction to do so. This concept shouldn't be so difficult for some Americans to understand. It should be fundamental.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I see alot of talk about "Drugs" there were no "drugs" only DRIED FLOWERS.

19 States have decriminalized posession of small amounts of these same dried flowers.

12 States allow Medicinal use of the same dried flowers.



Arizona is Draconian State just like the original law, get out while you can.

When will your state join the rest of us in realizing this is pure *bs* and Marijuana is not a "drug" and should not be classified as such?

Too bad the POTUS has no stones, since he was all for Decriminalization as a Senator..but now has....no stones.



[edit on 7-8-2009 by mrroqout]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
My friends and I used to walk over to Mexico for lunch.

Now it sometimes takes 3 hours to get back through customs.

The "Border Alarmists" - sure haven't done me any favors.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrroqout

Arizona is Draconian State just like the original law, get out while you can.



Gotta agree with you there. Last state in the continental union - and they've kept the attitude.

Arizona & Texas - - still fighting the war of Independence.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

That question, Annee, was meant for a poster who stated the Border Patrol has always had the authority to detain and arrest U.S. citizens, but if that were the case, they wouldn't need to be deputized to do so. And the man in the youtube video who refused to answer any of their questions, and instead grilled them would NOT have driven away.


Oh OK

Well - its a beautiful and warm sunny day here at the beach.

Surf conditions poor - only 1 ft - southwest wind. Too bad - so I'll meet you at Texas Loosey's for a beer.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Hmmm, in San Diego the surf was pretty high.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrroqout
I see alot of talk about "Drugs" there were no "drugs" only DRIED FLOWERS.


I'm not sure that the OP has shared that level of detail. In any case, while I am sympathetic to your cause, I don't think you're doing yourself a favor trying to reclassify Marijuana. A drug is a drug. Aspirin is a drug, too. That's why some tartly refer to drug prohibition as "The War On (Some) Drugs". That's exactly what it is.

You know what I think we need? Drug licensing and drug education. One should need to demonstrate that they are competent to make the decision to ingest intoxicating compounds and one should lose the legal right to do so when and if they lose the ability to conduct themselves responsibly. It would increase tax revenue, decrease drug-related crime, decrease smuggling, and defang some organized crime outfits. Meanwhile, society retains the right to limit the use of powerful substances by people who can't handle that privilege responsibly. At the very least I suspect this mechanism would be more efficient than Reaganesque policies driven by puritanical ethic.

It's fascinating observing how liberties are so easily eroded by playing sides against one another. Find people who like being intoxicated. Find people who think it's morally wrong. Let them have it out. Net result? Fewer liberties for all, but the side opposing the consumption of drugs feels that they are sacrificing rights they don't want or need. Find people who have commonalities with the profiles of the purported 9-11 attackers. Find people who want to feel safe. Let them have it out. Net result? Fewer liberties for all, but the side concerned with their personal safety feels that they are sacrificing rights they don't want or need. Guns? Wash, rinse, repeat. We keep this up and we'll wonder why we turned our backs on English rule. Seriously.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by mysticalzoe
 




Amen to that, He broke the law, deal with it. I don't think Border Control is that tough actually since more and more illegal immigrants are still getting into our country. You got off easy with the border control, the Mexican border control is worse with Americans. I've been to mexico 4 times, each time our car was always searched, for drugs, illegal immigrants, and stolen children. Did he whine about it, and cry, no, he took it like a man, and said thank god they are doing their job!!


The guy wasn't at the border. He was never in Mexico. He is an American Citizen that was detained without cause or warrant. This should not be acceptable to any American. However it seems most spew the same rhetoric, in some cases word for word. Which would lead one to believe that the source of this rhetoric is not from ones own mind but from a common source.

"Next time THINK!!"


Uhhh, right. He was detained with cause, he was transporting drugs. He admitted as much. He was 'detained' under probable cause and his vehicle searched. He was found to have an illegal substance, he was then 'arrested,' the were drugs secured as evidence, and he was fined; and most importantly has a court date.


The Boarder Patrol, of has been pointed out a few times now, has an operational theater (region) that extents -way- past the thin confines of the physical border of the USA. This operational jurisdiction has been established under the laws of the country, and upheld by the High Courts, which are tasked with defining the laws of this country and how they interact with the Constitution.

They have the legal obligation, under their Federal Mandate, to perform their checks and to 'detain' anyone who violate the laws covered under their Operational Mandate. They have just as much right to arrest or detain anyone for breaking the laws, as much so as any law enforcement agency. This 'legality' of their function has passed the 'Litmus Test' of the Supreme Courts.

I don't see anyone arguing that a Police Officer can not pull you over at a sobriety check point, and if they suspect you of being drunk or impaired, test you. Much less them detaining you if you are drunk / impaired. And should you 'reek of pot', they can bust you if a 'probable cause' search turns up pot. And just as Legally!

Both actions by the two disparate organizations are legal, fair and have been upheld by the courts!

The arguments that have been eschewed by proponents of the OP, are erroneous, misguided; and largely are only fomented to garner distrust of government agency that is tasked with the safety of this country.

Did the Boarder Patrol Agents have the dog 'sniff' just the OPS car? No, every car (or some ratio) was checked in a fair and consistent manner. Did the BP Agents abuse the OP (or others rights) by checking every car as it came through the check, no. Did the BP Agents abuse the OP, were they discourteous, and or treat him unfairly? By the OP's own words, no.

Is the county in which the BP station taking advantage of the flow of drugs coming through the check point intentionally? No, but considering that the shear volume of drugs that are being caught at that check point, the entire process has become streamlined out of sheer Necessity!


The Boarder Patrol is not operating illegally or unfairly; every citizen that comes through the check gets the same scrutiny. For the same reasons!

However, when a citizen is breaking the law, it is not the Boarder Patrol that is in error. Nor is the Boarder Patrol at fault for enforcing the laws.

This whole pandering to the OP's position that such searches are unfair and unconstitutional is farcical. The supposition that the Boarder Patrols day to day routine operations are to suppress the rights of Americans or to violate civil liberties, inherent social rights, including those of foreigners, is just as ludicrous.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Breaking the Law" is a -right- of the United States Citizen. (Or foreigners for that matter.)

Nowhere will it also say that if you are guilty of a crime you do not have to pay the consequences of such actions.

Is the fine the OP and countless others having to pay for breaking the drug laws unfair, unjust, a form of taxation without representation? No. As the fine evidently is a set fee, and applies to -everyone- who breaks the law equally and fairly.

And most importantly, the OP and others guilty of the same criminal act can have their day in court, to present evidence otherwise.

Is the Boarder Patrol violating the Constitution in their operations? No, the High Courts, whose job it is to interpret the law say they are not.

Is the Boarder Patrol violating state rights? No, clearly not. In fact due to the sheer volume of such cases, they are working in tandem.

The Boarder Patrol is not the bogeyman that the proponents of the of the OP are trying to create them to be.

Not to mention the Boarder Patrol likely has much higher scrutiny to ensure they maintain fairness in their operations than most police departments ever will see. Largely stemming from the humanitarian watch dog operations; along with the DEA, DHS, Treasury Department, and so on making sure drugs get destroyed and other hazards are stopped.

Simply put, once again, the Boarder Patrol did their jobs, nothing more nothing less. They had the right and obligation to do that job, and they had the right to use all means at their disposal to do so.

And MOST OF ALL:

No rights were violated.

If you knowingly break the law, and get caught, it is on you. You do not have a 'right' guaranteed to you by the Constitution of this country, that says you are legally allowed to break the law. However, should you break the law and get busted for it, you do have rights, and protections, afforded under the Constitution and the laws of the USA. (State and Federal!)

Given that the OP stated he was not treated unfairly or abused in any way during his 'arrest', clearly shows the Boarder Patrol was operating with efficiency and impartiality. Not to mention, doing it effectively.

Clearly this is nothing more than an effort to demonize the Boarder Patrol Agency. Wrongly demonize it.

M.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet
Clearly this is nothing more than an effort to demonize the Boarder Patrol Agency. Wrongly demonize it.


That's completely untrue, i've stated a few times the BP agents were polite and did their job professionally. They're not the ones who have allowed this checkpoint, that is no longer in an area with high volumes of illegals, to shift it's focus on citizens, using powers that the regular police force does not have in order to generate revenue, not keep americans safe. Nothing more.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 



Wow bud you repeat yourself OFTEN.

We understand your stance, however no amount of misused or mis-spelled big words is going to make you seem any more credible.

It is the BORDER PATROL first and foremost and not some group of rogue snowBOARDERS on "Boarder Patrol".

We get your point he broke the law he should be tarred and feathered in the public square for you and your Draconian pals amusement(while you swill buttwiper no doubt).

OR conversely he could move to a state in this union that has seen past the absurdity that is the criminalization of a flower. By a handful of scheming big business men that railroaded it through into law with no opposition, because they didn't allow it.....sounds familiar.

We should look past the FACT that the law has been found to be based in false premise and the flower in question DOES INDEED have medicinal properties.

We should all shut up and know we are not nearly as intelligent as you pass yourself off to be and roll over and let OUR GOVERNMENT TELL US how we should live 24/7 365..got ya.

Can't wait to see the uproar when they come for the "it's Illegal" crowds guns.

Also as a small side note currently, no national standards exist to measure canine competence. And false hits are commonplace, the dogs themselves along with overzealous handlers should be suspect. And subject to extreme scrutiny in court at every opportunity.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by mrroqout]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by mrroqout]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Moshpet
Clearly this is nothing more than an effort to demonize the Boarder Patrol Agency. Wrongly demonize it.


That's completely untrue, i've stated a few times the BP agents were polite and did their job professionally. They're not the ones who have allowed this checkpoint, that is no longer in an area with high volumes of illegals, to shift it's focus on citizens, using powers that the regular police force does not have in order to generate revenue, not keep americans safe. Nothing more.


The Operational Mandate of the Boarder Patrol doesn't 'just' cover Immigration. So what if the 'main' problem in that particular area isn't immigration, the fact that the 'drug' problem is so great as to warrant the continuance of that station, says that the station needs to be there.

Which part of their mandate is really in question here?

Customs? Drug Interdiction? Anti-Terrorism? Immigration? Operation Jurisdiction? Their cooperation with the State and Local Governments?
What part?

Seriously, since it is evident that, by the cooperation of the State and Federal Governments in that county, there is huge a drug problem, and some (evidently a large part) of it is getting stopped there.

Your supposition that the Boarder Patrol is 'improperly' placed, due the 'low level' of illegal immigrants getting caught, is in error. The only way you would be correct that they are improperly placed, would be if they were not catching anyone breaking the laws of this country, or if they were unable to fulfill any part of their Operational Mandate.

Since they are catching people with drugs, and it is evident that there is significant drug traffic and success at catching lawbreakers (not just the drugs); the Check Point is in a logical and ideal place of operation.

One thing you are neglecting to recognize is that the Boarder Patrol is not a 'Judicial Body.' While they have the obligation to make arrests and proffer charges and or fines, they can not 'try' and convict or declare people innocent.

Which means a Judicial Body, namely the State or County, has to determine peoples guilt or innocence. Which is a darned good thing.

Also, since the Boarder Patrol is a Federal Entity. If it came right down to the matter, they could set offenders up to face a Federal Judge, L-E-G-A-L-Y! As technically a Boarder Patrol Station is 'Federal Property,' as crimes carried out on Federal Property, can be placed under Federal Judicial Courts for trial.

Now since it is not practical or efficient to tie up a Federal Judge's time with what is effectively low level crime (under a certain dollar amount), someone has to try the case. Since there are courts establish to handle that level of crime, at the state and local level, those courts are used.

Had someone been caught with a 'significant' dollar amount of drugs (or did significant crime/act), they would be likely be facing a Federal Judge or a State Judge depending on the severity of the case. (Jurisprudence is not my strong point, but I am fairly sure terrorism would land under a Federal Judge, where as million $'s of pot would be under a State Judge's purview. I think.)

Truthfully the same thing would happen if people rolled onto a military base with drugs and were caught there. (Federal Property.) (Not recommended lol.) Simply put, some court -has- to be used, fortunately it's a County Court Judge, and not a State Court Judge handling the case. (So it sounds thus far.)

Now if the fine was not standardized across the board, the County Court Judge could try each and every case and bilk people for lots more then the fine that has been mentioned. However, since it is evident that the entire process has been 'streamlined' due to volume, that isn't happening.

A flat set fine is impartial and fair, and since it is being given out fairly to those caught, and from what I am reading, expunged just as quickly; there is no deliberate 'Boss Hogg' operation there.

The simple point is that with such a number of legitimate busts, and the fact that a County Judge has jurisdiction, and the fact that the process is stream lined; yes it would give the 'appearance' of being a 'for the profit' operation.

But it is just that an 'appearance,' much like McDonald's outsells Burger King. Just because there is (was) a sign saying 2 million served, doesn't make a solid case, for McD's outselling BK. (Locally or nationally.)

Yes, due to the sheer number of cases being legitimately caught, by a legitimately empowered Federal Agency to make those arrests, under a legitimate charter; the county will make a percentage of money from the cases. But from sheer volume, not quasi-legal machinations.

However, if you think they get all the money from those cases, and keep it 'in' the county coffers, you would be seriously mistaken. They only get a percentage of such revenues, some goes back to the Fed, some will go back to the State, some will be used in legitimate court costs. What little the County gets to keep doesn't go into one persons coffers, it gets spread around. And yes the money it tracked and accounted for, after all the State & Fed want their share!

I live in EL Paso, Texas, the Border Patrol's Area of Operations covers the entire city, and a great distance beyond it. You don't have to go to Mexico to end up driving through a BP check point, you simply can be heading east/west on a major highway, and that is just from living day to day here.

They locally bust people for drugs, though since the city/county police force has the manpower, and resources to bust, book, and set bail in town, it won't be a get your fine and go on your way. Nor would it likely be expunged at the same time. But it would still be the BP that made the initial arrest/detainment.

There is nothing criminal going on with the 'streamlining' of fines, nor is the County there 'deliberately' seeking to fill their coffers from such fines. They don't need to deliberately do it, as evidently there are enough lawbreakers that putting police out at the BP Check Point is not cost efficient.

Is the fine a bit large? I don't know, you would have to get the exact break down on fees, costs and so on per case. Odds on, however, the fees and costs of each case would tally up to around 2/3's - 3/4ths of the fine. What is left is shared.

There is no 'Boss Hogg' problem there, just a drug one.

M.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mrroqout
 


Eh, I misspell a word, and maybe others, my grammar is not the topic here.

As for the legality of pot, that's not the topic here either.

What is the topic, was the legality of the search, his arrest, and the fine. Not to mention the various implications as to if the BP has the right to use all of it's resources (including dogs) to do their job. Also the topic of discussion covers the legality of the county to allow federal agents to give out fines.

The other topics included, erroneously, that the BP and the State and Local police forces are constrained the same way. That the BP is some monster agency that is going to use a stereotypical abuse of force or power to grind Americans under the jack boot of oppression, is in error too.

Which level of education I write to, a college level versus fifth grade level, is out of politeness and respect for the others that read the forum. If at any time you did not understand a word of what I was saying, I would be happy to lower my level of writing to something you could understand. However since it is clear that you are 'presumably' educated, I doubt I will find such a task necessary.

Have an enlightened day,
M.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





He was detained with cause, he was transporting drugs.


He as well as every individual that is not waived through these check points are detained. Without probable cause. They are then questioned without reason. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. If people are going to concede these check points to be constitutional then there is nothing in place to prevent random house checks as the supreme court has ruled the fourth amendment "protects people not places".




The Boarder Patrol, of has been pointed out a few times now, has an operational theater (region) that extents -way- past the thin confines of the physical border of the USA. This operational jurisdiction has been established under the laws of the country, and upheld by the High Courts, which are tasked with defining the laws of this country and how they interact with the Constitution.


Your job as a citizen of this Country is not to merely spew what the law is and isn't in accordance to what you are told. It is to retain your rights. They were granted as unalienable and the only way we lose them is when we give them away. You have a due diligence to perform.




The arguments that have been eschewed by proponents of the OP, are erroneous, misguided; and largely are only fomented to garner distrust of government agency that is tasked with the safety of this country.


To state that because people to support "checkpoints" that we are attempting to garner distrust is nothing but baseless rhetoric.

Furthermore how does this incidence with the OP make this Country any safer. You appear to have bought into the fallacy that the more rights you give up the safer you will become. Are we any safer then 10 years ago? Many would argue that we are in the more vulnerable then we have been in decades.




Is the county in which the BP station taking advantage of the flow of drugs coming through the check point intentionally? No, but considering that the shear volume of drugs that are being caught at that check point, the entire process has become streamlined out of sheer Necessity!


You state this is done out of sheer necessity. Again there are other solutions that would avoid the detention of Americans on American soil. However it would be far less profitable to some and that is the reason you are told that it is necessary. Shame on you for supporting the fleecing of Americans because you accept the mediocrity of those tasked with keeping you "safe".




No, the High Courts, whose job it is to interpret the law say they are not.


What say you? Do you not hold your own opinion or is the formation of your opinion delegated to the "High Court". In addition the Supreme Court does concede that these check points do violate certain constitutionally protected rights however they state that it is necessary for the greater good.

Under Constitutional law the supreme court cannot believe something to be unconstitutional and not overturn. However it is clear that individuals that share your view point could care less what kind of law we are operating under and if it derives it's authority civilly. "The law is the law"



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Another question that none of you who support this checkpoint in the name of public safety has answered, is WHY, if they are concerned with our safety, do they not make some attempt to determine whether the individuals caught are under the influence before sending them back on their way? Seems to me, that it's not about safety at all, purely revenue. If not, the BP would pack up and move to a hotter spot for border crossers, now that the fences in that area have shown to be effective. The BP, IMO, should never by used solely to police U.S. citizens using loopholes meant to catch illegal migrants, even if they pretend that's not the case.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


They dont NEED to have any special reason to have a dog sniff your car, anymore than they need a special reason to look in your window as you drive by.

If I, an average joe, wanted my dog to sniff the outside of your car when you stopped in front of me, he'd sniff it. And there is no law against that.
The dogs are trained to detect ANY amount. Not just small amounts. And also you being a US citizen is irrelevant when the dog detects drugs. A huge number of drug and human smugglers that cross those check points are legal US citizens.

Do you expect the dog to bark loud when he smells a lot, and just ignore it when he smells a little?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by BFFritz
 


That had to be the most ridiculous comparison i've read yet, if your dog sniffed my car, you wouldn't be able to use that as cause to search it, your dog is irrelevant. The dogs themselves are not the issue, the issue is setting up a checkpoint and searching everybody's car that passes. Because like you said, the dog detects any amount in the vehicle, and for all intents and purpose searches it before you're even asked to pull aside. If this had been a checkpoint to sniff out unregistered guns, ammo, etc., the same people that support this now would be up in arms against it. This is nothing more than allowing our rights to be taken, because you don't care for the people that are being targeted now. But don't worry, soon everybody will be aware and that won't make them money anymore, then maybe they'll come after something that affects you more directly.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by 27jd]





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join