Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I think that the key difference that makes this so serious is the use of dogs to search. While a cop may decide to search you without warrant if they have probable cause (because there is an obvious smell of drugs in your immediate vicinity, or because they see drugs in your possession or car), obtaining probable cause by means of a dog, whose sense of smell is so much more powerful, ALREADY amounts to a form of searching IMO. If they had an imaginary magic x-ray machine to see what drugs you may have inside your car it would be more or less the same as the use of a dog, as it is an enhanced way to detect illegal substances that you reasonably expect are private. and this is the grey area in the meaning of "search" that is being exploited here.

The question is, what is "searching". Is "searching" activity that aims to expose what a person may reasonably expect to be private? if this is the meaning of searching, then the use of a dog is the start of the search process, and already should be considered illegal because no probable cause exists before the dog marks the car.

If the definition of searching is taken to be a "disruptive process" by which personal belongings are scrutinized, then a dog would not be a form of search.

So, if we are to say that non-disruptive searches are OK, such as the use of a dog, then wiretapping is also OK, and spying on a coworker is also OK. Somehow I see a double standard.

-rrr




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

Fact is - you did something illegal (whether it should be illegal or not is a different discussion). You got caught. Whether the Border Patrol has been given the right to issue a citation for efficiency - - or they called in the police to do it - - is irrelevant IMO.

The outcome is the same.


Not really. If he had been pulled over by a state trooper, not even a K-9 unit is allowed to sniff his vehicle without his permission. It would require a warrant. The fact that it WAS a border patrol made it possible for them to do so. As long as where he was stopped was 100 (airborne) miles from the border, he is subject to the border laws, as unfair as they may seem.

And yes, they patrol all the highways leading away from Mexico, so you are not magically exempt simply because you were not physically moving from Mexico into the U.S.



This discussion is exclusive to Border Patrol.

A state trooper is irrelevant to the specifics of this discussion.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oatmeal
reply to post by 27jd
 


Worse crap here, I'm tellin ya....
Line Two



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
This is comedy. The reason you were pulled over was for drugs. But since you want to seem innocent, you want to silence that whole side of the argument with the excuse that it is a T&C violation.

Thank god you were arrested. I am all for people doing what they want as long as it doesn't harm others, but when you get hit by the hammer and want others sympathy, you are not getting it from many others besides the people in the same boat as yourself.

There will also be those who oppose the government 100% that will be on your side, which is a fair amount of people here.

If I see a criminal about to kill someone, and the only way for me to defend that innocent civilian is to break the law by hurting the bad guy, I am going to do it.

My point?

The law can bend, either for you or against you. Watch which way the wind blows when dealing with it.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

I think it is a shame that some individuals believe that because procedures have been in place it makes them Constitutional. There are several unconstitutional laws on the books. It takes due diligence on the public's part to protect themselves from unconstitutional legislation.

Unfortunately many individuals in this Country share your belief that if something is signed into law that it must be Constitutional and it must be accepted without question.



What in your opinion, is Constitutional? That you simply wave your hand and say "begone!" and they immediately leave you alone?


While I appreciate your desire for 100% freedom from eveything, the world doesn't work that way. There really ARE bad guys, they DO bring in billions of dollars of drugs, many which end up in kids. They bring guns, Mexico is a great example of what happens when this goes unchecked.

The border solutions thus far have been underwhelming. But in the interim, until something better is devised, they do need to manage our borders. The biggest issues are illegals and drugs. So why is everyone so stunned that someone who HAD drugs was caught by border patrol?

I'm sorry if you really think a document made hundreds of years ago, is going to last forever, and will never need to be amended or changed to meet different challanges. I'd like to hear your ideas then, on how to control drug trafficking.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
file a lien against the Border patrol agents that violated your rights. Every violation has a 10k fine attached to it so if he violated lets say 5 of your rights = 50k lien. If you look up the # of violations though I'm sure they #100 or more, just give him a chance to respond, he won't of course and if he does he won't rectify the injuries. Then pop off a lien against him and take his bond & all of his assets as off set for the lien. Don't forget to include his wife and her assets as well.

Then, go have another vacation on the cool few hundred K that you collected from this thug.

Don't just do this to one agent, do it to all the ones that injured you.

After a few of them go homeless and hungry they'll start doing the job they are meant to do instead of harassing and robbing innocent people.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by injunfeller]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Whether the Border Patrol has been given the right to issue a citation for efficiency - - or they called in the police to do it - - is irrelevant IMO.


I think part of his concern is the fact that these "border checkpoints" are not even at the border. They are touted as being necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug importation. The OP is providing an example of these checkpoints using their jurisdiction beyond the scope of their purpose.

If the means really do justify the ends of stopping illegal immigration and drug trafficking then maybe we should have these check points on every corner. They seem to have the jurisdiction as well as the support of the public. The only people that would mind would be those that have something to hide. Right?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Thats too bad i couldnt of knew ya while i was living there i think we could be great friends.
I think thats lynx creek you are talking about and yeah it rarely gets water so you can dredge but cali has some beautiful spots to prospect but my dream is to go and do the alaska expedition the gpaa has every year its like 1200 a week but they provide everything and i talked to some folks who went last year or year before and brought home ounces of gold,they wouldnt say how many but he said they paid for their trip.Not to many hobbies you can do that..lol



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
In other areas Border Patrol can detain someone and call police to come arrest them. Yuma cut out the middle man for efficiency - - - because of the high volume of drug trafficking in their location.


Oh, in the name of efficiency, huh? So, let me ask you, why is it NOT okay for the police to set up permanent K9 checkpoints on major roads in EVERY city? Why is that not constitutional, but this is?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by earthship35
 


Yeah, that does suck, I could have shown you this spot. But it's not lynx creek, that is up in prescott on the other side of the bradshaws, can't dredge there it's illegal, just hand tools and pans...this is literally a few hill northwest of lake pleasant, it's still desert, it's called cow creek.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 





What in your opinion, is Constitutional?


I don't believe checkpoints to be Constitutional. Others share a different opinion. However I believe that detaining people at random regardless of the duration is unconstitutional. And if individuals are going to allow agencies to have such jurisdiction they should at the very least make sure their authority is limited to it's purpose. Instead individuals think it is necessary to allow others the ability to stop, question, and detain them without reason or warrant.




While I appreciate your desire for 100% freedom from eveything, the world doesn't work that way. There really ARE bad guys, they DO bring in billions of dollars of drugs, many which end up in kids. They bring guns, Mexico is a great example of what happens when this goes unchecked.

The border solutions thus far have been underwhelming. But in the interim, until something better is devised, they do need to manage our borders. The biggest issues are illegals and drugs. So why is everyone so stunned that someone who HAD drugs was caught by border patrol?


Maybe you are right. Then certainly you would support these check points at every corner. Wouldn't you? And Why only 100 miles inland? Are we to believe that illegal immigrants aren't further inland then 100 miles.

You do understand that this individual was not even at the border.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Annee
 





Whether the Border Patrol has been given the right to issue a citation for efficiency - - or they called in the police to do it - - is irrelevant IMO.


I think part of his concern is the fact that these "border checkpoints" are not even at the border. They are touted as being necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug importation. The OP is providing an example of these checkpoints using their jurisdiction beyond the scope of their purpose.

If the means really do justify the ends of stopping illegal immigration and drug trafficking then maybe we should have these check points on every corner. They seem to have the jurisdiction as well as the support of the public. The only people that would mind would be those that have something to hide. Right?



The road (highway) he is talking about is definitely "on the border" - - as the only main highway.

There are ground sensors and other electronic devises - - plus patrols between this main highway and the actual border.

He is basically arguing a technicality. Border Patrol was given rights which he contends can only belong to actual police. With the volume of traffic in this area - - it is common sense to cut out the middle man. Does this common sense directive really violate the constitution?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Sorry - no sympathy here. If you do something illegal you also have to put up with the consequences. Grow up and take your punishment like a man.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oatmeal

Do Not Move To California! You think things are bad there, this state is broke! The cops pull you over for anything, they need money! All services have been cut, school programs, Nat'l parks you name it, its gone! All taxes on everything have been raised, car registrations have doubled. I can go on and on but I repeat, Do Not Move to California!


But they still seem to have the "hundreds of thousands" of dollars to pursue "criminals" who are doing something that was supposedly "decriminalized" (granted alot of that funding came from the feds, but not all of it):

www.fresnobee.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





The road (highway) he is talking about is definitely "on the border" - - as the only main highway.


Oh. Hmmm. I thought the OP stated this checkpoint was inland? I thought he also mentioned Prescott which most certainly is not on the border. Maybe I misunderstood. So what you are stating is that this individual was detained at the border? Maybe the OP could shed some light?




Does this common sense directive really violate the constitution?


Not necessarily. However I believe the checkpoints do. Not the checkpoints that are directly on the border where a person is detained prior to entering the Country but the ones that are inland.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib


Oh. Hmmm. I thought the OP stated this checkpoint was inland? I thought he also mentioned Prescott which most certainly is not on the border. Maybe I misunderstood. So what you are stating is that this individual was detained at the border? Maybe the OP could shed some light?


I am pretty sure he is talking about I-8

Interstate 8

ARIZONA - en.wikipedia.org...

CALIFORNIA - en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 5-8-2009 by Annee]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





I am pretty sure he is talking about I-8


Not from the area. But looking at a map I-8 doesn't even appear to lead into Mexico. Where does it intersect the border?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
Maybe the OP could shed some light?


I was nowhere near a U.S./ Mexico border. Interstate 8 goes from east to west, through southern california. The checkpoint is eastbound, about 75 miles west of yuma, deep in arizona, right after a town called Dateland.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Not from the area. But looking at a map I-8 doesn't even appear to lead into Mexico. Where does it intersect the border?


Well - - I guess you'll just have to decide for yourself if you consider this a "border road".

I consider it a "border road".



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by harvib
Maybe the OP could shed some light?


I was nowhere near a U.S./ Mexico border. Interstate 8 goes from east to west, through southern california. The checkpoint is eastbound, about 75 miles west of yuma, deep in arizona, right after a town called Dateland.


That's what I thought. So you weren't on the border as some people claim. It is a shame that people support your detainment and subsequent arrest by an agency that is there to curb illegal immigration but instead operating inside the borders and detaining and arresting American Citizens. I wonder if these same individuals would mind having such check points located throughout their own cities?






top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join