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

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Replied below.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Everwatcher33]




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
You are not immune to searches by virtue of being an American citizen. In fact, the Supreme Court has provided additional rights to search your vehicle by border guards, than say, a regular stop in your hometown:

Border Searches:
The Supreme Court has held that an officer does not need a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to search you, your car, or your belongings, at a border. Therefore, any time you cross a U.S. border, you in effect consent to a search.

If you were in effect at a border check, you can most certainly be searched, even without the dog. With reasonable suspicious, they can conduct x-rays, cavity searches, you name it.

Border searches, mainly due the events of 9/11, have been given more free reign than a standard search. If you had been pulled over on the side of the road, you CAN (and should) tell them they are not allowed to search, and even if they bring a K-9 unit in, you can tell them you do not consent for the animal to sniff your vehicle. You do not have these rights at a border check.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Sorry then you said Yuma, AZ happens to be a major Port of Entry for immigrants. Also though Border Patrol has authority up to 100 miles in the border if that helps.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Everwatcher33]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Forgive me if I'm wrong, I am only a Canadian, but I believe that random drug sniffing constitutes illegal search and seizure, given that the police require a warrant or probable cause to search your person or property. To my knowledge the only place an exception is made is at the airport. Thus this checkpoint is unconstitutional, illegal and plain unjust. Wether carying contraband or not, there was no reason for the OP to be pulled over unless he was driving erratically or had a busted headlight or something.

North of the border we consider ourselves to be free, but have no such document explicitly outlining and guaranteeing out rights and limiting the governments powers (Our Charter of Rights is nowhere near as encompassing and explicit) Though I consider this a great nation, I am often envious of you Americans as I believe your constitution to be one of if not the most important and righteous documents in recorded history. But that envy quickly fades when I see how little value many of you accord it, especially those sworn to uphold its tenets.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Everwatcher33
Sorry then you said Yuma, AZ happens to be a major Port of Entry for immigrants. Also though Border Patrol has authority up to 100 miles in the border if that helps.


I know that, but like I said, the targeting of US citizens is fairly new, within the last few years. If you read the article, you'll see that the new fence has dramatically cut the number of illegal immigrants coming into the area. So they have all that manpower approved under Bush, and nobody to focus on, so they have now turned to US citizens, which they DID NOT before. It is NOT legal for local law enforcement to use K9 checks against citizens, because it is considered unconstitutional, but with all the new equipment and a newly idle border patrol, they havefound a way around that. It is astounding how many people just roll over and assume anything the government does is legit.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


ONCE again, i was nowhere near a U.S. border crossing, i was not in mexico, i was returning from san diego, california.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Well, stop whining!
You're shipping illegal drugs across this country (I don't care what amount) and now, where you got busted, you are writing a letter of complaint. Com'on....



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
When citizens of the Uited States start allowing for justifications of violations of the Constitution


Explain to me the violations.

As I understand it - The Border Patrol has jurisdiction across all United States borders and at least 25 miles off the border.

The road traveled & check points we are discussing falls within that 25 mile limit.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Though I consider this a great nation, I am often envious of you Americans as I believe your constitution to be one of if not the most important and righteous documents in recorded history. But that envy quickly fades when I see how little value many of you accord it, especially those sworn to uphold its tenets.


Apparently the constitution no longer applies here, unless you're a perfect citizen, then you will have nothing to worry about. Like I said before, all these government licking zombies will support the action as long as they agree with it personally, but wait until it progresses even further. GUNS are next. Just wait and see, I wonder how many of these right wing, hippie haters will surrender their guns in order to be law abiding citizens. We'll see who is whining and crying then.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Everwatcher33
Also though Border Patrol has authority up to 100 miles in the border if that helps.


Where do you get the 100 miles?

Is that new? Or is it something like it extends from the 25 mile to 100 mile if there is just cause.

Just curious.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Here ya go, read up...


The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
STAR AND FLAG... All you idiots who support any form of "law enforcement" doing anything to anyone at anytime for any reason because they feel like it are going to be in for a big surprise in a couple years when they take something that means something to "YOU"..Do not worry my friends it will be open season on them soon enough and they'll get back 10 fold what they give.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Where do you get the 100 miles?

Is that new? Or is it something like it extends from the 25 mile to 100 mile if there is just cause.

Just curious.


I believe it is new, under the Bush administration, no need for just cause.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


search by sniff (k-9) is exempt from the 4th amendment.

just sayin...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

I believe it is new, under the Bush administration, no need for just cause.


Did the drug dog "tag" your car?

Did the officers ask if they could search your vehicle?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This is just sad.
I know that some checkpoints throughout Texas it is the same way.
if there isn't a warrant, you are a US citizen, and you are in the US, you have your rights.
and they shouldn't be able to do this.
good luck to you, every person like you are helping bring this country back to order.
it just takes time my friends.
-Astra



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


That doesn't even fully apply into the rest of the united states. If that were true officers couldn't do pat downs, couldn't do probable cause searches, couldn't bring drug dogs to sniff around your car. Get over it they hav been doing it for years.

BY THE WAY as for just doing this in the last few years read your article better.

In the past, small-time drug users were busted occasionally. The Border Patrol has used dogs at its checkpoints for at least two decades, mainly for the purpose of detecting human cargo. But until a few years ago, it employed far fewer than it does now, which meant dogs were not routinely placed at the checkpoints near Yuma. Also, the checkpoints were often closed because fewer agents were available to staff them.

All it says is it employed fewer dogs up until a few years ago...you tell people to read the article perhaps you should read it better. TWO DECADES is not a few years.

The info comes from CBP officers that I have met and talked with. It should be in their policy guidelines. Also your article says the checkpoints are perm, that makes them legal. You can't just randomly search people, but since perm and searches everyone you are SOL.

Also in the same article you linked:

The Supreme Court had, in the past, found two major exceptions to its general disapproval of police checkpoints. In 1990's Michigan Dept. of State Police vs. Sitz, the High Court allowed DUI checkpoints. And in 1976's United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte, it gave the Border Patrol the right to set up checkpoints that seek to uncover illegal immigrants — with the secondary purpose of finding drugs. Guess what their primary purpose is to find illegal immigrants...secondary drugs. SO GUESS WHAT YOU ARE SOL AGAIN.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Everwatcher33]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthship35
... All you idiots who support any form of "law enforcement" doing anything to anyone at anytime for any reason because they feel like it . . .


We are specifically discussing the Border - Border Patrol - Rights & Jurisdiction.

We are not discussing the entire land mass of the USA. That would be a different or new thread.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Since you live in a Constitution Free zone, the rules don't apply. Like jurisdiction. "Constitution-free Zone"

Yuma is right in the thick of it.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rightuos
search by sniff (k-9) is exempt from the 4th amendment.

just sayin...


No, no it isn't....i SWEAR you people can't be bothered with actually reading links anymore, so you're ignorant to the story, why even comment?


However, keeping in mind the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, judges have traditionally taken a dim view of such "suspicion-less" stops and searches of vehicles.

After first taking office in 1993, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a former DEA agent, proposed staking out main roads in and out of Maricopa County with checkpoints. Then-County Attorney Rick Romley put the kibosh on Arpaio's idea, saying it was unconstitutional.



top topics
 
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join