Top DHS checkpoint refusals

Hard to believe this is going on inside America...Land of the free and the home of the brave!

This is what to do if get stopped at an immigration check point on a road 50 mile away from the border and asked "Are you an American Citizen?"

How much does having a camera make a difference?

I have driven over a lot of this country (america) and I have never come across any of these that I can remember are they new or just in areas near the border?

Originally posted by MindpurelyMind
How much does having a camera make a difference?

I have driven over a lot of this country (america) and I have never come across any of these that I can remember are they new or just in areas near the border?

I don't know, never seen them myself.

reply to post by whatsecret
It would be just my luck that if I refused to answer their questions they would take it out on me by tearing up and searching my vehicle...Perhaps I am a good little programmed citizen but I would answer their questions before I had the thought of standing my grounds and refusing...If this is really happening though it is bogus for sure...My brother-in-law is a semi truck driver I will have to ask him next time he comes home if this has happened to him in any the the many states he travels through...good OP...S&F

"your forward progress is stopped."
love it!

I kinda feel bad for the officers, this must be making their jobs a lot harder. But the "I''m just doing my job" excuse didn't help the Nazis at the Nirenberg trials and it shouldn't work here too. These types of policy enforcement leads to very bad things. "History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes" as Mark Twain noted.

Originally posted by bladdersweat
"your forward progress is stopped."
love it!

How about the "I need to check what's in your trunk because your car is dirty"?

double post

Papiere, Bitte... Welcome to the New America.

We have lived long enough to see the fall of the Republic, guess its just the way of the world.

Tyranny can only last so long before those under its yoke decide to shrug it off.

reply to post by whatsecret


unfortunately the main one is between texas and california



this is awesome

because if they are not detaining him they cant hold them...

they would have to read them thier rights

One man and then another stands for all of your rights and yet so many are criticizing his actions?

Want to know where the problem TRULY lies?

With cowards, sell-outs and the UN-educated in so far as YOUR DAMN RIGHTS!

C'mon people...Wake the hell up! A few can't continue to stand for so many for too much longer. We need help.

Peace

Originally posted by jude11
One man and then another stands for all of your rights and yet so many are criticizing his actions?

Want to know where the problem TRULY lies?

With cowards, sell-outs and the UN-educated in so far as YOUR DAMN RIGHTS!

C'mon people...Wake the hell up! A few can't continue to stand for so many for too much longer. We need help.

Peace

It drives me mad when people say things like "Its not a big deal" or "Its for protection."

And people wonder why the education system is the way it is, its so people do not ask questions, a dumb slave is a happy one. Education reform wont ever happen, its never going to change, its only going to get worse so that MORE people will believe that to have safety you must reject liberty.

The rights we have matter, there is a reason for them, and it should terrify anyone who sees them stepped on so freely by our government.

I am sure Germans in 1938 where saying the same thing, Im not trying to exaggerate when I mention Germany prewar. Once you set a precedent that the peoples Rights are Secondary to the Government and can be freely taken, anything can and will happen.

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by jude11
One man and then another stands for all of your rights and yet so many are criticizing his actions?

Want to know where the problem TRULY lies?

With cowards, sell-outs and the UN-educated in so far as YOUR DAMN RIGHTS!

C'mon people...Wake the hell up! A few can't continue to stand for so many for too much longer. We need help.

Peace

It drives me mad when people say things like "Its not a big deal" or "Its for protection."

And people wonder why the education system is the way it is, its so people do not ask questions, a dumb slave is a happy one. Education reform wont ever happen, its never going to change, its only going to get worse so that MORE people will believe that to have safety you must reject liberty.

The rights we have matter, there is a reason for them, and it should terrify anyone who sees them stepped on so freely by our government.

I am sure Germans in 1938 where saying the same thing, Im not trying to exaggerate when I mention Germany prewar. Once you set a precedent that the peoples Rights are Secondary to the Government and can be freely taken, anything can and will happen.

I thought I was out of words....I was wrong.

Peace

Originally posted by whatsecret
I kinda feel bad for the officers, this must be making their jobs a lot harder. But the "I''m just doing my job" excuse didn't help the Nazis at the Nirenberg trials and it shouldn't work here too. These types of policy enforcement leads to very bad things. "History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes" as Mark Twain noted.

When I was young and foolish I had sympathy for those appointed enforcers of the Govt.

I am now old and wise and have absolutely no feeling for those that choose to be in a position of power so that they can play their ego trips because of a misguided youth.

The info is out there and the only ones still wanting to enforce the unconstitutional methods of subjugation on their neighbors, families and friends are the true traitors to the Country.

These officers are not protecting anyone. They are only puppets for their paycheck and are just feeding on power that they would have never had without a shiny new badge and gun.

The REAL traitors.

Peace

The only one's i've ever seen are the 3 here in So.Calif on I-15 Temecula, I-5 San Clemente and SR 94 out in no where but not very far from Tecate border crossing. They've been there since i've been in So.Cal since '95 at least.

The officers never say anything, just wave me thru. Or they'll wave you off to the side if they want to check you out more.

I don't recall seeing any other check points while driving thru NV, AZ or NM.

I hate to be the odd one out all the time. (So, why do you do it Charles?) But as easy as it is to dislike the Immigration officials, or the system, they're not doing anything unconstitutional and could have been much tougher with those "refusals" had they wanted to. The people making the refusals were legally wrong, the agents just didn't want to expend the effort, although they legally could have.

Here's the syllabus for US v Martinez-Fuerte decided by the Supreme Court in 1976.

1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.

(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly.

(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.

(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.

(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it.

2. Operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.
The visible manifestations of the field officers' authority at a checkpoint provide assurances to motorists that the officers are acting lawfully. Moreover, the purpose of a warrant in preventing hindsight from coloring the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure is inapplicable here, since the reasonableness of checkpoint stops turns on factors such as the checkpoint's location and method of operation. These factors are not susceptible of the distortion of hindsight, and will be open to post-stop review notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. Nor is the purpose of a warrant in substituting a magistrate's judgment for that of the searching or seizing officer applicable, since the need for this is reduced when the decision to "seize" is not entirely in the hands of the field officer and deference is to be given to the administrative decisions of higher ranking officials in selecting the checkpoint locations. (Citations omitted) (Emphasis added)

supreme.justia.com...

reply to post by charles1952


This is a much more complex issue than simple can they stop and ask you questions, specifically the question being asked that is the problem is the Citizenship one.

As for the stop and question, that's only OK in Boarder areas.

their are parts where its agricultural stops (which are another issue entirely).

there's also the matter if its a fixed stop or a roving stop that seems to matter a bit.

Just read that whole decision and getting to the meat of the matter.

We therefore held that a roving patrol stop need not be justified by probable Page 428 U. S. 556 cause and may be undertaken if the stopping officer is "aware of specific articulate facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion" that a vehicle contains illegal aliens.

So, the ruling on asking citizenship does not require the stringent level of Probable that normal stops outside the boarders 25 mile range do not allow.

how many of those officers in the video gave the lower definition of "aware of specific articulate facts" So things like observe and intuit, IE car riding low on the suspension with out visible reason, not probable cause, but enough to allow them to ask. So they would even have the right to ask the Citizenship question.

Just because the level of cause is not at Probable does not mean they can ask the citizenship question with out SOMETHING more than your driving near an area.


Getting to the end of it though, NO CRIME has been committed by a citizen refusing to answer the question of citizenship, They can ask you to pull over, you can demand a warrant to search, but it gets into tricky areas (thats why theirs a SCOTUS ruling in the first place) thats why the people where let go, in the end they knew he was a citizen and a search for illegals would obtain nothing. In every case where the question is asked about citizenship its fairly clear from logical deduction that the people are.

It seems to me these cops are poorly trained on the constitutionality of the citizenship question itself and how it applies to their legal duties in the first place at a boarder stop.

eta: and lastly the 5th applies still, you wont get in trouble for not talking to a cop, you will for not obeying his orders once he makes the choice to arrest you, but still the not talking wont be a crime.

Citizens: "We DEMAND you do something about illegal immigration!"

Govt: "We've set up slightly annoying checkpoints in border states to check for illegal immigrants"

Citizens: "You're violating our rights with this police state!"

Govt: "WTF we just can't do anything right, can we? After all this was the number one suggestion when asked what we could do about illegal immigration, but now that we did it we're wrong?"

It's called moving the goal posts. Ask for something then whine and complain when you get it and realize it wasn't how you thought it would be. I guess you just thought the brown folks would stopped, but that would be profiling.

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
Citizens: "We DEMAND you do something about illegal immigration!"

Govt: "We've set up slightly annoying checkpoints in border states to check for illegal immigrants"

Citizens: "You're violating our rights with this police state!"

Govt: "WTF we just can't do anything right, can we? After all this was the number one suggestion when asked what we could do about illegal immigration, but now that we did it we're wrong?"

It's called moving the goal posts. Ask for something then whine and complain when you get it and realize it wasn't how you thought it would be. I guess you just thought the brown folks would stopped, but that would be profiling.

Hi,
Moving the goalpost was what went wrong?
We first wanted the border sealed, and did not meet that initial goal...

By-products of our maligned set of goals?

Owner Operators
NAFTA Superhighway Takes a Small Step Toward Reality

June 03, 2013

Why is the 2nd cop asking to look in that guys trunk?