Top DHS checkpoint refusals

reply to post by charles1952


this may be true but a main point was missed..


the main law still applies.. 4th amendment still king..

These people asked for two main things

Why did you stop me?

The officers over all did not meet legal requirements...because if they cant answer the reason at the time of the stop.. large issues

The other point

Are you detaining me?

If the officers cant say yes.. which they never will say yes to.. except one.. even then at that point he has to follow procedures... it becomes police matter..

No where to my knowledge have immigration agents be given the authority to arrest american citizens..


To be honest Legally DoHS is being a bunch of morons (as are the guys with the cameras)
Work with locals..

Put a single local cop with a badge sitting there.. Easy day for the officer.. He can ask every car he wants by state law for Drivers license, registration, and insurance.. You can site all the crap you want a Local LEO can ask for it in the middle of the a federal agent doing his job.. As long as the federal agent is OK with it..

See the solution is so damn simple it escapes them...

I agree with poster

reply to post by whatsecret


@OP, awesome post, and very instructional video.

The case I didn't understand was when it looked like a highway patrolman/state trooper stepped in; seems like this LEO could tell the driver what to do, but still to search the car without probable cause would be illegal. This particular video segment ended soon after the state LEO intervened, so I imagine the videographer/driver had to stand down at that point.

reply to post by ripcontrol

Dear ripcontrol,

I do feel badly when I miss main points.

The Supreme Court held, in the case I cited earlier, that at a checkpoint such as the one filmed in the source videos, the officers did not even need a suspicion which could be put into words in order to stop and question the
occupants.

If the answers gave any reason for suspicion, such as "I'm not going to tell you," the officers were Constitutionally justified in ordering the car to the secondary area. That is considered an investigatory detention, and not an arrest. So when the person with the camera asks "Am I being detained?" the proper answer from the officer is "Yes, for an investigatory detention. I don't have to give you Miranda for this because you are not under arrest."

The guys with the cameras aren't right, or smart, they're just catching officers off guard.

And the Fourth Amendment isn't king. What the Supreme Court says the Fourth Amendment is, is king.

Wth respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I'll play nice with one caveat..

State by state rules are different..

Federal Law is murky and grey in part of this area..

We could argue back and forth but I will rely on what my attorney told a friend.. If they detain him they must read him his rights.. To search the car and question him they must read him his rights.. (Texas)

The car search has to have valid basis.. no valid basis it can be tossed.. Anything they ask him can be tossed if they did not read him his rights and it is inadmissible... ( he ended that part by saying STFU the second they read you your rights.. Yes he has had tapes tossed for this right being abused..)

As for the federal government.. I was left with the impression it is on steroids... The federal officers will read you your rights because they can be screwed with a decent lawyer.. (yes he mentioned immigration losing a case because the driver was an american citizen and was not read his rights by local cops acting with federal officers)

The purposely do not state yes you are being detained.. they want you to volunteer for it.. Refusal to volunteer for the federal agency is not suspicion.. It is for local..

The one that said you are being detained, got it right but then did not proceed to read them their rights..

The other issue is that none of them quoted the statues or laws that authorized the searches.. Even the supreme court decision would be appropriate..

If they wish to search and detain those that refuse, their is law that backs them but and this is key, immigration doesnt have the authority..

Law enforcement officer required.. The morons running the show are just being dumb.. The local Leo's can, at the check points, detain them.. (yes you want to read them their rights.. Stops the ability to fight back in court if they say anything post reading of rights)

the main reason is protective custody or a protective hold.. 48 to 72 hours..


They do not really need more power or authority.. they just need to be smarter and ninja like when they institute the process.. The laws are the books use them..

reply to post by ripcontrol

Dear ripcontrol,

Thanks for taking the time to get back to me. We agree on a lot of your points, I suspect our disagreement is based on a confusion of some words' meanings.

We're talking about both the car search, and the detaining of the car in the secondary inspection area. To search the car they need consent or a particular set of circumstances, which I don't want to get into because there wasn't any search. The officers just asked if they could search, the guy said "no" and that was that.

"Reading his rights" has nothing whatever to do with the search of the car. If they find stuff that justifies an arrest, AND they want to be able to use what he says, THEN they have to go Miranda. But it's not necessary for the search itself.

Or are you thinking that looking through the car windows is a search? The Court has said it isn't.

If they detain him they must read him his rights.. To search the car and question him they must read him his rights..

If they arrest him, they must read the rights. But the Court said the brief detention in the secondary area was perfectly Constitutional. (See 1. d. in my post on Page 1)

I am more and more convinced that we're mixing up the detention and an arrest. The Court points out they are different, and the pulling of the cars over is not an arrest. If he says something while pulled over it is admissable, but when the detention proceeds to a full blown arrest, Miranda applies.

The other issue is that none of them quoted the statues or laws that authorized the searches.. Even the supreme court decision would be appropriate.

It's not required that that be done..

If they wish to search and detain those that refuse, their is law that backs them but and this is key, immigration doesnt have the authority..

Of course Immigration has the authority. Here's the law:
www.uscis.gov...

I hope your lawyer just misunderstood what was asked.

With respect,
Charles1952