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

reply to post by Moshpet



We're going to need to agree to disagree on this one. Since you seem to feel "enlightened" to the issue at hand, and again the rest of us are just the unwashed masses.

The reason the BORDER Patrol doesn't give it to a Fed judge..is the FED judge would throw it right out. Were talking mostly about amounts UNDER A GRAM even in ZERO Tolerance states this is often overlooked and rarely booked. Even if it was 1/8 this is still a ridiculously small amount to tie up tax dollars with, most DA's and judges realize this.


And this CP if you read its numbers has not had many "significant" busts but it churns out people with a roach/rolling papers/an empty used MJ pipe/ less than a gram/a seed..Yes A SEED all day everyday.

Here is where it's insane, the piece of say TOILET PAPER you wrap your teeny tiny lil'bud in they will charge you with Possession of paraphenalia for the TP....yeah no that's not bonkers.

And as for TX you're mistaken if you have your documentation together and were just passing through when you are pulled over and MJ found. Yes you will be booked depending on amount. In the case I know of first hand it was 1/4 lb. Case transferred back to California where the, person had their medicinal recommendation. It took serious leg work on this persons part but in the end...

Court costs paid, case transferred..obviously no punishment in CA. The TX judge in the case even told the whole courtroom that this man had effectively beat the TX system.


The number of false hits a K9 gives every week/month/year ought to be enough to realize that a K9 alerting to you is COMPLETELY SUSPECT in and of itself. There is no law against smelling like weed just possessing it in Draconian States remember that....

Originally posted by harvib

Your definition of 'probable cause' is likely in error.

When an officer of the law, who is trained to work with a K9, and in legal performance of his or her duties, receives an 'alert' from the dog; the conditions for probable cause have been met.

Clearly the dog or the the officer's interpretation of the dogs 'alert' was not in error. Can false 'alerts' happen, yes, does it mean the officers making the checks are operating out side of their purview when they make that search, no.

My job, isn't to to break laws either. Ignorance of the law, doesn't hold up in court either. As for ensuring I maintain and keep my rights, and how I do so is up to me, however I must do so legally.

However, when the laws are unfair, unequally applied, and so on; I have the right to make a legal case and to bring clear and concise evidence to that case as to correct the problem. However, I have to do so within the bounds of law.

Which is to say, I am not allowed to incite a riot or civil unrest, nor am I allowed to libel an organization, or bring false claims against them.

I have an obligation to adhere the laws that are passed down by the government, such that I do not cause harm to myself or others. I do not have a right to commit crimes, to murder or steal; yet I do have a right of self defense; and to act rightly to prevent a crime. I also have a right to free speech, and to worship as I feel. (Need I mention my right to bear arms?)

I understand and accept that the Constitution is a document, created for the people by the people... for the protection of the people. Not just the Law Breakers, everyone.

I also understand that there are times for the good of all, some amount of my personal freedoms and others can be 'fairly' encroached upon. That in times of utmost emergency we can be asked surrender more rights, such that others are protected; and that the people as a nation continues.

As a citizen, I have the right to sacrifice my life or rights, to save another citizen, to defend others by serving in the defense of the law, the armed forces, and other municipal agencies; such that the continuance of the people for which the Constitution was written are protected.

I accept responsibility as a citizen for my own actions, and I expect all due consideration and protection of the laws, by those who are empowered to enforce them.

Having been a soldier, I understand all to well the costs of my actions, I also understand all to well the injustices that stem from the world we live in. And having seen the state of other nations that allow criminals to run their countries. The suffering of their peoples, the inhospitable conditions in which they are forced to live in, their hunger... and their general plight; I understand the cost of my liberty and the costs of my freedoms.

Having seen such things, I know that laws that are fair, just, and most importantly upheld; will help to keep this country from collapse. Since I can look over the border and see the costs of not maintaining law and order, to see the tales of violence and injustice written time and time again in the papers and on the peoples faces; I know that some surrendered freedoms, are not given up in vain or without need.

As a responsible person, living in a country where the laws, ordinances, and government agencies uphold and maintain the peace; I owe it to myself and others to live fully with in the rights I have been granted.

Now the question as to whether or not brief inconveniences or minor encroachments of peoples' Constitutional rights, in the defense of the peoples or in the upholding of the law, I find it largely does not effect law abiding peaceful citizens. Even in that they may or may not recognize such encroachments on their freedoms are even noticed.

Now if you knowingly are breaking the law, you are likely to disagree. But then you have already abrogated the inherent social agreement between the government, its peoples, and yourself. Then the people whose job is to enforce the law, are bound them selves to follow the law, to carry out their duties, and while ensuring your rights are maintained, arrest you.

Given the uncertain nature of the world in general, and without trying to pin blame on anyone for the events that require such encroachments on our freedoms; such as check points as being necessary or not is moot. They in the Border Patrols case, are established to protect the Country, its peoples, and to allow the continuance of our freedoms as granted under the Constitution.

However, I for one find the brief moments where such check points, might briefly and in all truth barely impact my rights, find the measure of security that the check points grant worth it.

Unlike Iraq and other countries, we are not seeing our buildings, churches, hospitals, restaurants, theaters, and so on, blown to bits on a daily basis. So yeah, it sucks that we need such things, and it may suck for those breaking the law, but on the whole the good such check points do out weighs that trivial stop.

Lastly, you can protest all you want the problems that affect our country, as long as you don't injure my rights and security while you do it, and most of all do it legally.

M.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by Moshpet]

Originally posted by Moshpet
I understand and accept that the Constitution is a document, created for the people by the people... for the protection of the people. Not just the Law Breakers, everyone.

I also understand that there are times for the good of all, some amount of my personal freedoms and others can be 'fairly' encroached upon. That in times of utmost emergency we can be asked surrender more rights, such that others are protected; and that the people as a nation continues.

As a citizen, I have the right to sacrifice my life or rights, to save another citizen, to defend others by serving in the defense of the law, the armed forces, and other municipal agencies; such that the continuance of the people for which the Constitution was written are protected.

You are super long winded online, but I appreciate you finally discussing the issue itself, and not me. I also appreciate that you have finally admitted above, that this is a violation of the constitution (that you swore to protect). The fact that you support and accept it doesn't change that. That's the ONLY thing I was pointing out in making this thread, not the draconian drug laws that are not in place to protect us in ANY way, and only keep the Los Zetas and all the other cartels that frighten you so much in business. Americans WILL NOT abide by drug laws, that's made abundantly clear by the sheer volume of the busts at that checkpoint. So, the prohibition that you support only places you in further danger from terrorists like the Los Zetas, it does not keep you safe.

Speaking of being kept safe, again I ask you, if it's about safety, why do they not ensure that drivers are not under the influence of that which they are caught with before they are sent back onto the road??? Where does public safety fit in there?

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

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Moshpet

You are super long winded online, but I appreciate you finally discussing the issue itself, and not me. I also appreciate that you have finally admitted above, that this is a violation of the constitution (that you swore to protect). The fact that you support and accept it doesn't change that. That's the ONLY thing I was pointing out in making this thread, not the draconian drug laws that are not in place to protect us in ANY way, and only keep the Los Zetas and all the other cartels that frighten you so much in business. Americans WILL NOT abide by drug laws, that's made abundantly clear by the sheer volume of the busts at that checkpoint. So, the prohibition that you support only places you in further danger from terrorists like the Los Zetas, it does not keep you safe.

Speaking of being kept safe, again I ask you, if it's about safety, why do they not ensure that drivers are not under the influence of that which they are caught with before they are sent back onto the road??? Where does public safety fit in there?

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

The thing is I don't see it as a violation of the Constitution; as it is a function of the government that is set up to protect the people.

However, it encroaches on a persons rights, only in the effect that the dog can smell the presence of pot; and the dog cannot discern if it is a person carrying or if it is just in the vehicle. In reference to illegal search and seizure, and search of a person of a persons residence; the impact is so slight as to be a non issue, if a person is not breaking the law.

However, it being on your person, and not in the vehicle doesn't exempt you from a search, if you are 'tagged' by the dog handler. Since the legality of the search has been ruled as valid by the Supreme Courts, that minor encroachment upon a persons right's is negated as following under 'the public good,' public safety, and so on.

Now as to your second question, that being why they do not check if a person is stoned or not. Did the officer look you in the face close enough to see your eyes? Were you monitored by an officer in how you walked, your behavior and mannerisms? If you managed to pass all of those visual checks you likely would have allowed to continue on your way.

Now if your eyes had been dilated, your gait or your speech been impaired and your behavior agitated or out of the ordinary, (beyond what is normal); most likley you would have been held much longer.

The problem with pot, is there is no Breathalyzer (that I am aware of,) that will register a person's state of impairment. (Or level there of.) It is all visual, and behavioral checks on the officer's part. While they can arrest a person and force a blood test to see if a person had used illegal drugs, it will not give a clear indication as to how impaired a person is. So it falls on the officer to make the call if a person is impaired or not.

The litmus test in that case would be how many people are detained for being impaired at that check point, and for what.

I do not think the Border Patrol Agents knowingly let impaired people drive while impaired. But then, if a person can fool the officer, and doesn't obviously reek of pot, the officer's options are limited.

Ah well, Eureka is on

M.

reply to post by Moshpet


Cool, that makes sense I guess. But ones eyes don't dilate, they become bloodshot, which can be allergies or whatever. There is no stumbling either, it doesn't affect the body in the way alcohol does. I don't think we're going to agree on the level of encroachment this represents. But I do appreciate the level of civility that we have come to. Prohibition only creates a black market, we've learned in the past that didn't work, why do we keep making the same mistake? Because it's not a mistake, the black market is there by design, and it's been uncovered many times that black market money making it's way back to individuals in OUR government.

You living in TX, you probably like guns. I do too. Now, i'm sure you're not totally secure with the future of our right to bear arms given the current administration and the medias new focus on guns and the various ways they seem to be setting the stage for new legislation. So, in the future these checkpoints could also be mandated to search for banned weapons, will you still support every citizen who gets a dog hit being searched for guns, and having them confiscated? Will you still support laws regardless whether they are constitutional or who's benefit the laws are in place for, and comply with the new laws? I hope you answer honestly.

edit: I just wanted to add, after so many pages of being called scum and basically equated to tony montana from scarface, that i would never break a law that is put in place to protect people or their property. I have never put anybody else in danger or stolen from anybody, nor would i ever. That is my litmus test for whether a law is just or not. Is there a victim, or is the law in place to protect revenue for big corporations who influence heavily OUR laws through lobbying and campaign contributions? I can say with 100% certainty that i'm not a danger to society, in any way.

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

reply to post by Moshpet

Your definition of 'probable cause' is likely in error.

Your comprehension of my post is likely in error.

The individual as well as all who are not waived through are detained. Detained in the sense that they are not free to leave. Once again the Supreme Court has conceded that this is a violation of our constitutionally protected rights.

Now the question as to whether or not brief inconveniences or minor encroachments of peoples' Constitutional rights, in the defense of the peoples or in the upholding of the law, I find it largely does not effect law abiding peaceful citizens. Even in that they may or may not recognize such encroachments on their freedoms are even noticed.

Then you would also be i support of a significant increase in the number of these checkpoints. How about random house checks. Unless people have something to hide they shouldn't mind "the brief inconvenience or minor encroachment of peoples' Constitutional rights.

Once again I will state that under Constitutional law no individual or agency has the ability to make a law that is unconstitutional. However we have a case of it here. How can that be? Do people like you care?

Given the uncertain nature of the world in general, and without trying to pin blame on anyone for the events that require such encroachments on our freedoms; such as check points as being necessary or not is moot. They in the Border Patrols case, are established to protect the Country, its peoples, and to allow the continuance of our freedoms as granted under the Constitution.

This statement seems to be based on the assumption that such encroachments are the only solution.

However, I for one find the brief moments where such check points, might briefly and in all truth barely impact my rights, find the measure of security that the check points grant worth it.

Yet you acknowledge they do impact your rights. How can one have such jurisdiction?

Lastly, you can protest all you want the problems that affect our country, as long as you don't injure my rights and security while you do it, and most of all do it legally.

However you are in support of your rights being injured as long as someone tells you that it is for your security and it is the "law". No matter that such a "law" is unlawful under Constitutional Law.

I also understand that there are times for the good of all, some amount of my personal freedoms and others can be 'fairly' encroached upon. That in times of utmost emergency we can be asked surrender more rights, such that others are protected; and that the people as a nation continues.

Your rights are considered unalienable. They cannot be "fairly" encroached upon. Under Constitutional Law your statement is incorrect. Do you believe us not to be under Constitutional Law?



[edit on 7-8-2009 by harvib]

Originally by harvib reply to Moshpet]

 

Your definition...

Your comprehension ...

* No not really.

The individual as well as all who are not waived through are detained. Detained in the sense that they are not free to leave. Once again the Supreme Court has conceded that this is a violation of our constitutionally protected rights.

*Detained, in that they are not allowed to drive through the car ahead of them? Or detained in that they can't pass through the narrow lanes safely due to lane constriction? Detained in that that you are not allowed to run over federal agents? Detained in that if a car ahead of them has to be moved to a full out inspection point? Did the Constitution suddenly outlaw traffic jams? Or physics????

*Well if that is your definition of detained, you have never been trapped in traffic on a freeway, an that is more often than not, -not- controlled by the law enforcement agencies. If is so, that means by your definition, you've been detained by everyone else. During rush hour no less. Which by your definition of detainment means every person stuck in rush hour traffic ahead of you, is violating your constitutional rights....

*Which is a ludicrous supposition on your part. Inconvenienced, delayed, constrained in movement in the need for public safety, stuck in traffic, any one of these statements would be more accurate and correct. You lost time, but you were not denied the continuance of your travels, and that is hardly a breach of your Constitutional Rights. Road construction likely impairs you more than a check by the Border Patrol does in that respect. So that argument is severely invalid.

Now the question inconveniences rights,.......

Then you would also be i[n] support of a significant increase in the number of these checkpoints.

* Yes I would be in support of such such things.

How about random house checks.

* Under what circumstances? I can think of several potential reasons for checks that might fall under the 'public' good. Most largely stemming from civil unrest, violence, and pandemic. Not to put it mildly, but the scale of the problem would also dictate which might or not be acceptable.

Unless people....

* Which right? Under which scenario? Are the agents tasked with only specific things they can check for? Is there a need under the guise of public safety or national security for such checks? What is the ultimate goal of such checks?

Once again I will state that under Constitutional law no individual or agency has the ability to make a law that is unconstitutional....

*Which law are you referring too exactly?
*If you are trying to use your erroneous definition of detainment as a "law," there is no case. Common sense says you can't drive through a car stopped ahead of yours. Commons sense says that you are not legally permitted to drive over or endanger Federal Agents, much less cause property damage, or endanger others and or yourself.

*As for people like myself.... That's a pretty narrow subset, a seriously narrow subset. Consisting of Males Over Forty with a College Education, Combat Infantrymen and Calvary Soldiers (Specifically those who served in Honduras, Panama, Kuwait and Iraq,) Disabled Veterans, Life Members of the DAV and Members of the NAAV, Law Abiding Citizens, Native Americans (Specifically: Mixed Crow, Lakota, Algonquin, European, Gemanic and Irish (Yes I am a Mutt!),) Democrats, Texans, Boarder Residents, People With No Criminal Records, People born in Charleston, South Carolina and raised in Iowa. People who have PTSD and Depression, People Contaminated with Depleted Uranium, Computer Geeks and so on and such forth.

*Clearly if you can create or define a group 'like' myself, you are a miracle worker. (Which is also to read: What are you doing here when the world needs you?????)

*So seriously, which group am I supposed to be here, that you think I am defending from or that has a position to be associated with???

Given the ...

This statement seems ... solution.

*And what solution is there to the myriad of problems and threats out there that does not infringe or impact anyone's rights? Seriously, given the scope of the current situation, and the potential threats arising out from our collective American past, what solution is there that will not impact anyone's rights, in any manner?

*The answer is that there is none. However, given there is a threat, no matter how it was caused to be, that the best solution is one that impacts the most, the least. Which means agencies of the Federal Government have to come up with a workable solution, one that works and yet does no permanent damage to the people they are protecting. And guess what? They have, and no, a delay in travel is not permanent damage.

However, I for one find the brief m....

Yet you...

*We the People give them that brief jurisdiction under the understanding that we gain protection and security from threats that might deny us the right to live their lives in safety. Now if you do not accept that they do protect us, that largely is up to you. However, under the need for public security and safety, you are but one person out of millions. Also your disagreement may or may not be valid, as you have been out voted by those of us who want that safety, and in this case we outnumber you. (It's passive Democracy in action.)

Lastly...

However ...

*Again, which law? How am I unfairly detained? Do I have a right to endanger people, peoples property or lives just to be on my way?

*Quantify, clarify, and most importantly be specific: How does being stuck behind someones car consist of illegal detainment?

*Where is such a case permanent? When has someone who is not guilty under such circumstances, not been allowed to continue?

*Which person has permanently been injured or suffered real harm from it?

I also time....

Your rights ... Law?


This county is guided by the Constitution, but we do not live purely under Constitutional Law. The Laws of the Nation are a conglomeration of laws or social rules, that are tested for fairness under the Constitution, by the Supreme Court and us the people. Under that system, we have flourished all these years. It is not to say the system is perfect, but it does function.

Being stuck in traffic or delayed happens,

M

reply to post by Moshpet

Detained, in that they are not allowed to drive through the car ahead of them? Or detained in that they can't pass through the narrow lanes safely due to lane constriction? Detained in that that you are not allowed to run over federal agents? Detained in that if a car ahead of them has to be moved to a full out inspection point? Did the Constitution suddenly outlaw traffic jams? Or physics????

Isn't the purpose of a check point to require cars to stop. So detained in the sense that he was not free to leave. Not due to physics but because of claimed jurisdiction.

Under what circumstances? I can think of several potential reasons for checks that might fall under the 'public' good. Most largely stemming from civil unrest, violence, and pandemic. Not to put it mildly, but the scale of the problem would also dictate which might or not be acceptable.

Clearly you support the idea of a true and literal police state as long as it can be justified as falling under the "public good". Who gets to decide when this "public good" is necessary?

If you are trying to use your erroneous definition of detainment as a "law," there is no case. Common sense says you can't drive through a car stopped ahead of yours. Commons sense says that you are not legally permitted to drive over or endanger Federal Agents, much less cause property damage, or endanger others and or yourself.

Actually I am using the case of the United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

(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.

Clearly they recognize the infringement however they believe it to be "limited". Under Constitutional Law the Supreme Court derives it's authority from the Constitution it does not have the authority to deem something as an infringement and not rule against such infringements.

The answer is that there is none. However, given there is a threat, no matter how it was caused to be, that the best solution is one that impacts the most, the least. Which means agencies of the Federal Government have to come up with a workable solution, one that works and yet does no permanent damage to the people they are protecting. And guess what? They have, and no, a delay in travel is not permanent damage.

So to you a solution that doesn't involve "permanent damage" is acceptable. I didn't think mediocrity or compromise would be acceptable to a United States soldier.

*We the People give them that brief jurisdiction under the understanding that we gain protection and security from threats that might deny us the right to live their lives in safety.

Show me where the acquired jurisdiction is temporary. I believe a legal precedent has been set with the "border patrol" . Along with check points in general when that legislation was set.

This county is guided by the Constitution, but we do not live purely under Constitutional Law.

I believe you are correct. Do you know when this changed because this Country was born under Constitutional law and meant to exist under Constitutional law especially on the Federal level.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Cool, that makes sense I guess. But ones eyes don't dilate, they become bloodshot, which can be allergies or whatever. There is no stumbling either, it doesn't affect the body in the way alcohol does. I don't think we're going to agree on the level of encroachment this represents.

*LOL Likely not.

But I do appreciate the level of civility that we have come to. Prohibition only creates a black market, we've learned in the past that didn't work, why do we keep making the same mistake? Because it's not a mistake, the black market is there by design, and it's been uncovered many times that black market money making it's way back to individuals in OUR government.

*Part of me suspects the truth is more complex than that. Though I don't think mass deregulation of pot would correct the problem either.

You living in TX, you probably like guns. I do too.

*I like them, but I don't own one. Largely from the fact that I know up close and personal what a gun will do to a person, and not just the person who gets killed by one. It's not to say say if the world ends, I would not pick one up for hunting, or could not get one if I needed it for self defense.

Now, i'm sure you're not totally secure with the future of our right to bear arms given the current administration and the medias new focus on guns and the various ways they seem to be setting the stage for new legislation.

*I'm concerned, but then I have seen countless instances where unregistered guns or fraudulently obtained guns have been used in crime.

So, in the future these checkpoints could also be mandated to search for banned weapons, will you still support every citizen who gets a dog hit being searched for guns, and having them confiscated?

*Let us say for instance, that assault weapons are out and out banned, unless you have a special permit. And that such permits are not impossible to get, and are likely a mere formality, that your possession of them simply means you end up in a database. But you have to register them. Naturally there would be some logical restrictions, a history of drug abuse, serious mental illness, or a felony criminal record, prevents you from legal ownership.

*Now if you are transporting those weapons across state lines, for personal recreation, it would be more than reasonable to have papers or an id card for you to present as proof of compliance with the laws. More than likely you would also be required to have the ammunition and weapons secured in a lockable case, and separate from each other. After all it's not prudent to have a loaded weapon where a law enforcement officer might think they are at risk.

*In such a case, people get stopped, they take a few minutes / moments for the officers to check credentials, the weapons in question, that fact people are not appearing to go commit a crime. That is, as long as people are not committing another crime when they are checked.

*So lets say someone gets popped for a controlled substance, and they have registered weapons and the documents of ownership. (More than slightly foolish IMO.) If the officers have to do more then cite a person for the amount of drugs, eg place the person in jail for seriously trafficing, I do not think it wrong for the person to have to forfeit the weapons. (More then likely that is a felony charge and conviction anyways.)

*Now if a person does not have a permit for the weapons on them, and they are transporting them, and get stopped. I would think it would not be unfair for it to take some time to confirm the weapons are legal, via ssn, or driver license cross check in the data base.

*And the last case, no permit, no license, no receipt showing recent purchase, then it becomes a matter where the person knowingly is breaking the law. They get popped, they loose their guns, or they have them confiscated until they can obtain such permits.

Will you still support laws regardless whether they are constitutional or who's benefit the laws are in place for, and comply with the new laws? I hope you answer honestly.

*The sticking point with guns, is that there is no Constitutional definition clearly saying which type of gun or weapon you can or can not have.

So let us presume they make a law saying no assault weapons period.

However shotguns, pistols and most hunting rifles are fine. Then technically the right to bear arms is still maintained, as other guns are allowed.

The onus then falls on the assault weapons owner to get rid of the weapon. Unless the rifle has been registered elsewhere, it's nigh impossible to know who has them. But if you can't buy new ones, or purchase ammunition for assault weapons, the circulation of the assault weapons will diminish. Well in the law abiding population that is.

Personally, I do not see pistols, shot guns and true hunting rifles ever being outlawed. Regulated like mad yes, outlawed no. Fully Automatic weapons however, I kinda suspect may be on the way out. However as long as people can legally obtain other weapons, their Second Amendment rights will not have not been voided.

So yes, if such a case where to be made law, and if there are other acceptable weapons to ensure the 2nd Amendment is not voided; then I would have no problems if such weapons are confiscated.

Personally, I don't see a need to own assault rifles myself, Bambi just isn't that dangerous!

And if you need a full clip to take Bambi down, you need to go Vegan anyways.

edit: I just wanted to add, after so many pages of being called scum and basically equated to tony montana from scarface, that i would never break a law that is put in place to protect people or their property. I have never put anybody else in danger or stolen from anybody, nor would i ever. That is my litmus test for whether a law is just or not. Is there a victim, or is the law in place to protect revenue for big corporations who influence heavily OUR laws through lobbying and campaign contributions? I can say with 100% certainty that i'm not a danger to society, in any way.

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

Which is to say, Vegetarian is the Indian word for poor hunter.

M.

reply to post by 27jd


If you think the laws in Arizona are bad, you might want to reconsider moving to California. If the police out here want to pull you over and they have no probable cause, they will just make up charges to justify stopping you.

I was stopped a few months ago for walking down our street. I had not violated any laws and was just walking home from a friends house at around 10pm. One of our 2,000 (+/-) local sheriffs drove by, hit me with a spotlight, then did a U-turn and detained me while running my license (I guess a license is now required for walking) I was not arrested, just detained for 15 minutes for no reason at all.

Welcome to our police state.

Originally posted by Moshpet
Which is to say, Vegetarian is the Indian word for poor hunter.

Good one. I'm a good shot, but i'm not into hunting anyway. I just like target shooting. Although i'm not a vegetarian, i see no need to go out into the wilderness and kill something just minding it's own business when i can buy meat from the store. Of course like you said, if society falls that would have to change, but for now bambi is safe.

Oh, and sorry to hear about the PTSD, and thank you for your service. On a personal level you have my full respect, regardless how i feel about our current state of government and the infringement on our rights i feel the checkpoint represents.



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

reply to post by skid


I've heard that a few times on this thread. Funny, i've never had any trouble with the police in CA, guess they leave the out of state plates alone. Maybe they just don't want to chase off the tourists, lol.

Originally posted by Moshpet
*Part of me suspects the truth is more complex than that. Though I don't think mass deregulation of pot would correct the problem either.

Just wanted to add that mass deregulation is not my idea of the solution either. Of course it should be regulated the way alcohol and tobacco is, this is a choice i believe adults should have, not children. The feds i'm sure would still keep their war on drugs, i just think one particular item should be cut from the herd. Other, harder substances do present a clear danger to society, i will never argue that. I've watched them completely destroy the lives of once stable and sane people. They turn people into that little creature from the lord of the rings. But the only harm i've seen this item do to anyone, had to do with stiff punitive harm inflicted by the government. But we probably shouldn't get into that discussion any further.

On topic, i still do not believe this particular checkpoint to be constitutional, not even in the name of public safety. This particular checkpoint does not provide any additional safety to the public, and even the BP admits they hardly get any illegals there anymore, it has clearly changed focus. That does not mean the i think the BP is not needed, i just think they are needed on the actual border. Why not use this additional manpower to go to Home Depot parking lot round ups?

While its unconstitutional to search like that, anyone dumb enough to bring weed back from cali deserves what they get. If you have enough money for a bag of weed, a car, and a vacation to cali, you have enough money to hire a lawyer good enough to get you out of trouble.

I've been through the system twice, it works well.

Originally posted by jprophet420
I've been through the system twice, it works well.

You're calling me dumb, yet you admit you've been through it twice? Whatever you say.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by jprophet420
I've been through the system twice, it works well.

You're calling me dumb, yet you admit you've been through it twice? Whatever you say.

Quote me exactly please and then think about it. I got what I deserved, an expunged record. Will you?

reply to post by jprophet420


Yeah, actually. Without a lawyer too. They expunge everybody who gets caught at that checkpoint, if you pay a 400 dollar fine. You go to court with 30-40 people, the only thing an attorney can do for you is make it to where you don't have to appear, and that costs 2,000 dollars. I'd rather just drive to Wellton myself. They had to streamline the process like that due to the sheer volume of "dumb" people who have never been through that particular checkpoint, with it's new primary focus before. Their court cannot handle that, so again, as long as you pay your fine it is dismissed.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Isn't the purpose of a check point to require cars to stop. So detained in the sense that he was not free to leave. Not due to physics but because of claimed jurisdiction.

Not claimed, established jurisdiction. Big difference. Anyone can claim they have jurisdiction, but only when it is established, regulated, monitored, funded and a host of other things creating that group as a viable entity; does it become established. Which is to say, while Joe on the street can not declare himself as having jurisdiction, the Border Patrol is established as a viable entity and can claim jurisdiction; as long as it falls under their Operational Mandate.

Under what .

Clearly you support the idea of a true and literal police state as long as it can be justified as falling under the "public good". Who gets to decide when this "public good" is necessary?

I think you are trying to hard to paint me as someone who wants a police state like North Korea, than the form of government we currently operate under. Which isn't the case.

However, my perspective of how things work in real life is skewed by my life's experiences. Also how I view 'threats' or 'encroachment of rights or freedoms' and so on is colored by them. Put bluntly, nearly getting killed countless time, seeing first hand what absolute anarchy and absolute corruption will do to a country, and if you will; being forced to kill to protect myself and others has focused my perceptions.

Simply put, if it does not put my family at risk, or puts my friends at risk (eg people I would fight and die for), it is a non-issue. Which is to say, any actions or agencies that are enacted to legitimately protect my family and friends from real threats are valid, and will have my support.

Which means, in the current topic we are examining, I will support the Border Patrol, and I will tolerate the mild encroachments and delays; in that the Border Patrol was established to protect my family. Which is also to say I support my police, firemen, and so on and such forth; for the same reasons.

Should a National Emergency or even a state or local one, where Martial Law needs to be enacted, you will not find me rioting against or fomenting dissension against the people working to protect me. Nor will you find me raising a hand against American Soldiers. However, that does not mean I am a quiescent sheep, in that I will not allow permanent harm to befall my family.

I will also say, that should civilization utterly collapse, that I would support any form of stability or government that would allow my family the best level of protection. Which is also to say, which ever government arises and has the best chances of coming up out of the ashes, such that my children's children and so on will be safe and secure, would have my support.

As for who gets to decide what is the 'public good,' in a crisis, the civil government does. Outside of a crisis, we the people and working responsibly with the government, we the people establish laws and regulations which help to define the public good. Which is to say, that if you are not bothering to vote, to understand what the issues are in every period of elections; your views of the 'public good' will not be heard.

Actually I am using the case of the United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

(b).
(c)

Clearly they recognize the infringement however they believe it to be "limited".

Which I would more than agree with; but then I do not see the stops as the point where rights are briefly encroached, but rather the various visual searches (non physical searches) and the 'sniff checks', as being the point where the encroachment takes place. A life time of 'Hurry up and wait,' makes stops and delays nothing more than an inconvenience, but clearly not detainment; in the sense that I understand the concept to be.

Under Constitutional Law the Supreme Court derives it's authority from the Constitution it does not have the authority to deem something as an infringement and not rule against such infringements.

I think your statement here is erroneous, in that they are not allowed to nullify the Constitution itself. But rather they do have the responsibility to interpret laws for fairness under the 'guidance' of the Constitution; and when a law is determined to be Unconstitutional, they are empowered to rule such laws as void. Then legislation is enacted to strike the unfair law from the books, and or a better one is drafted. However, a 'precedence' is created in such instance and follow on laws or regulations are tested against that as well.

Which is not to say, parts of the Constitution can not be amended, but that largely is not in the hands of the Courts, but rather the legislative and executive branches of the government; and lastly ourselves the people.

So to you a solution that

From the stand point that I view things from the stand point of ensuring my families security comes first, I do not see it as 'mediocrity.' Which is the filter in which I view most of my life, but I am not a neurotic wreck looking for threats to my family either.

Show me where the acquired jurisdiction is temporary. I believe a legal precedent has been set with the "border patrol" . Along with check points in general when that legislation was set.

If say the state of things changes radically, and the Border Patrol could no longer operate as an viable entity, which is to say they are disbanded; then that authority would go away. However I do not see a time like that ahead.

As for check points going away, they won't as long as there is a legitimate need for them to be used.

Do you know when this changed?

I would posit that it changed slowly, that there isn't a clear point when it truly happened. Though I think largely it grew out of necessity and was a natural evolution of basic Human and States rights that impacted how the Federal Laws were enacted and balanced against. Which is to say the process started long before the Civil War, and the Freedom of the Slaves was just a logical progression of such growth. (Though part of that was punitively tied into economics as well.)

M.

Ive been through a boder patroll check point several times, and some times there is nobody even there, and once i did get my car searched. They asked me what i was doing , and then asked me if they could search my car. I abliged and then they took me out and i stood 30 feet away with an agent right next to me. 3 of them searched my car with the help of a dog, and they happned to find some pot seeds and stems and a bowl i forgot was in there. I admitted it was mine, so they confiscated it and told me they were looking for bigger things than just a bowl and some seeds. But they then told me they could arrest me for this stuff but it is my lucky day. So they let me go , but i still had the seeds in my car, as i drove away. True story hope you like it.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by ChilledVoodoo]

reply to post by ChilledVoodoo


To my knowledge that's the way pretty much all other BP stations work, that's why i'm saying this particular one, the only one where the BP is deputized to arrest/ detain U.S. citizens, is unconstitutional. Because regular law enforcement cannot set up K9 stations, the BP is supposed to be targeting bigger fish with those special powers.

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