In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Border Patrol Violate 4th Amendment
VAPA
Member Posts: 8 ✭✭
Click here to see the Border Patrol in Uvalde Texas violating the fourth amendment rights of a military officer a couple of weeks ago. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U
Comments
To me, and it is my personal opinion, but a person that is video taping a confrontation with police or other agency law enforcement officer's might just be looking to elevate the situation?
Case in point is the pastor that blocked traffic on I-8 until the Border patrol agents broke out his windows and removed him from the vehicle.
Excellent example of one person's rights becoming a real pain in the butt for the rest of the people in line trying to get to where they felt they needed to be. At least in this video he did move to secondary so the rest of the world could get on with life.
[V]
I'm sure that everyone has a video camera in their vehicle but darned if I can find mine.
To me, and it is my personal opinion, but a person that is video taping a confrontation with police or other agency law enforcement officer's might just be looking to elevate the situation?
Case in point is the pastor that blocked traffic on I-8 until the Border patrol agents broke out his windows and removed him from the vehicle.
Excellent example of one person's rights becoming a real pain in the butt for the rest of the people in line trying to get to where they felt they needed to be. At least in this video he did move to secondary so the rest of the world could get on with life.
[V]
I'm with you guys. Reminds me of this video I saw online of this surveillance video from a convenience store. It shows this guy come in and rob the girl behind the cash register and then he beats her up. But when I watched it, it was obvious she was being rude to the guy! I mean, she said "How are you today" but she didn't add a "sir" to that. How unprofessional! Now many people were saying how the video showed the guy breaking the law and everything but they didn't ask the million dollar question that is asked here. WHAT IS A PERSON DOING WITH CAMERAS INSTALLED IN THE FIRST PLACE!? It's just crazy to think that the actions caught on video tape are to be judged on their own merits without factoring in the fact that the person had a camera there to catch it all. At least you guys aren't falling for that. You guys have restored my faith in the decency of Americans. Keep it up!
I'm with you guys. Reminds me of this video I saw online of this surveillance video from a convenience store. It shows this guy come in and rob the girl behind the cash register and then he beats her up. But when I watched it, it was obvious she was being rude to the guy! I mean, she said "How are you today" but she didn't add a "sir" to that. How unprofessional! Now many people were saying how the video showed the guy breaking the law and everything but they didn't ask the million dollar question that is asked here. WHAT IS A PERSON DOING WITH CAMERAS INSTALLED IN THE FIRST PLACE!? It's just crazy to think that the actions caught on video tape are to be judged on their own merits without factoring in the fact that the person had a camera there to catch it all. At least you guys aren't falling for that. You guys have restored my faith in the decency of Americans. Keep it up![/quote]
[:o)] If that comparison makes sense to you I can see little room for arguement. [xx(]
I am not a "cop-hater" of any sort but, I will not consent to a search of my vehicle or my house. I they want to search, they need a reason. "Because I want to" is not good enough.
I think the Police were wrong in this case. Sorry if a citizen standing up for his rights inconvenienced someone.
Did they have a right to detain and question him under cinstitutional law?
CP
I would take exception, and it is only my personal opinion, to a person setting up a confrontation just to stir up crap. Since the person has mentioned having previous "problems" my take on the situation is that it could have been provoked.
Even a video may not show the entire incident, depending on what point the camera was initiated. If it is a case for legal interpetation, then the video should be entered as evidence in a court of law rather than uploaded to youtube or a similar site.
I can only attest to my own experiences with several of the check points in this area. I am commonly asked if I am a US citizen .. one time I was asked what was in the covered bed of my pickup, but was never asked to open it. Worst encounter I have had with INS was at a US Port of Entry and an extremely rude female agent .. so they are out there and it's pot luck as to who you draw.
[xx(]
I would be surprised if there wasn't a sign in the area that said something to the effect that ALL vehicles are subject to search. There is one at my perimeter fence where I work. Generally speaking, ever state border crossing can search vehicles when they want to as a was to stop various Ag Pests. And I have no doubt that this guy got his butt ripped when he got back to his company commander. Something tells me he isn't much of a soldiar anyway.
Where I work the choice is simple, We search your vehicle or you don't come on base. Period. Not that's not a big deal if your just passing through or here to pick up someone. BUT. If your there as a vendor, or truck driver, or employee,,,,,Then you might have a problem. You refuse a search you either walk or go home because your car isn't coming on. This guy is actually interferring with a federal officer in the performance of his duty by his uncoorperative and childish behavior.
I just watched a couple of these other vidies on the site. These are a bunch of stupid little children that think they are going to stirr up some "stuff" to prove some silly little point. They are spoiled little activists that have no clue what they are doing. But they think they are so smart. Using very specific phrases that their buddy over community college 1st year law class tole him to say. They are just a bunch of punks that need their little Butts spanked because they obviously didn't get enough of it while growing up. Activist A**holes.
Everyone does know that the "pastor" was also the same one profiled by the media for his attention getting open carry during the POTUS's visit to Phoenix?
45long .... totally agree with your post. [:D]
The driver is looking for trouble. He is trying to provoke an incident. He deliberately being uncooperative. Simply showing something through a window is not providing valid I.D. . The officer must physically touch the ID and passport to determine if it is fake or real. If this guy were to pull this at an airport he would have already been taken to a room where he would questioned at length.The way he is acting is cause for suspician.
I would be surprised if there wasn't a sign in the area that said something to the effect that ALL vehicles are subject to search. There is one at my perimeter fence where I work. Generally speaking, ever state border crossing can search vehicles when they want to as a was to stop various Ag Pests. And I have no doubt that this guy got his butt ripped when he got back to his company commander. Something tells me he isn't much of a soldiar anyway.
Where I work the choice is simple, We search your vehicle or you don't come on base. Period. Not that's not a big deal if your just passing through or here to pick up someone. BUT. If your there as a vendor, or truck driver, or employee,,,,,Then you might have a problem. You refuse a search you either walk or go home because your car isn't coming on. This guy is actually interferring with a federal officer in the performance of his duty by his uncoorperative and childish behavior.
I just watched a couple of these other vidies on the site. These are a bunch of stupid little children that think they are going to stirr up some "stuff" to prove some silly little point. They are spoiled little activists that have no clue what they are doing. But they think they are so smart. Using very specific phrases that their buddy over community college 1st year law class tole him to say. They are just a bunch of punks that need their little Butts spanked because they obviously didn't get enough of it while growing up. Activist A**holes.
I absolutely agree with you fellas. The guy's previous experiences lead me to believe he went there looking for trouble too. He should have learned from those experiences that standing up for your rights will not be tolerated but he just doesn't get it. You could tell he had nefarious intentions by his initial greeting to the poor defenseless agent, "How are you doing today?" He went there looking for trouble and the fact he had cameras installed just makes that obvious. They should outlaw cameras (except the ones the agents had rolling that were recording) because everybody knows when you're being recorded you're going to be more likely to violate the law. The actions of the agents can only be explained by the knowledge they were being recorded. And him being uncooperative is obvious. He's asked a question which he answers and then told to roll his window down but while he rolls it down further he didn't roll it down all the way! Obviously the agent meant for him to roll it down all the way and the driver should have showed up with windows removed completely...further evidence he was trying to stir up trouble. Then again when told to go to secondary without being asked about his citizenship he complied but not without asking why...you don't ask why, you just do what you are told!!
Like you said, going through a borderless checkpoint 40 miles inland is just like trying to enter a military base. You will be searched because after all, driving down the interstate is just like entering onto a military base. And again I agree with you there was probably a sign up that said all vehicles had to be searched at this checkpoint 40 miles away from the border. Maybe the agents hid the sign since it would conflict with the rulings by the court that say searches require probable cause. Who knows? Judicial activists always quoting the fourth amendment at us real Americans, you know how they are.
You're right, something tells me this guy isn't a very good soldier too. Who cares about his decoration for heroism (yeah right) and all that time deployed in combat. He didn't roll his window down all the way and he had cameras in his car!!!! Everybody knows heroes roll their windows down all the way, don't have cameras, and comply with any demand made of them whether its illegal or demeaning or not.
He's just a stupid activist and I bet the reason he doesn't have any other videos posted is because he's just not a very good activist. An activist without any other videos is just a bad one pretending to be just some guys trying to drive down the road without being harassed.
They should send him to North Korea or China or something and have them square him away on how to respect authority before being allowed to live here in the USA where we are all about liberty, the Bill of Rights, and honoring those who sacrificed everything to give us that freedom. This guy needs some work.
Thanks for you guys standing up for all things American and exposing this driver for what he is! You would make our fallen soldiers proud and I'm humbled by your love of liberty. I know our country is safe with you standing guard ever so vigilant.
I remember earlier mention of the "other" incident where the "pastor" was roughed up at the Arizona check point.
Everyone does know that the "pastor" was also the same one profiled by the media for his attention getting open carry during the POTUS's visit to Phoenix?
45long .... totally agree with your post. [:D]
Exactly! How can that pastor be trusted with him acting legally and inspiring others to open carry within the bounds of the law!! Thankfully the agents are there to break the law and set a good example.
quote:Originally posted by fyrfinder
I remember earlier mention of the "other" incident where the "pastor" was roughed up at the Arizona check point.
Everyone does know that the "pastor" was also the same one profiled by the media for his attention getting open carry during the POTUS's visit to Phoenix?
45long .... totally agree with your post. [:D]
Exactly! How can that pastor be trusted with him acting legally and inspiring others to open carry within the bounds of the law!! Thankfully the agents are there to break the law and set a good example.
I wouldn't trust him or the church of MaryJane that he preaches at. But least I forget, this is a wonderful country and even trolls have opinions that they are privileged to render. Even trolls must remember that they are responsible for their actions (although seemingly less and less each day) and more power to them.
Speaking of, would like to see a bit more information on your profile. Just curious. [;)]
Of course IF that were the case and some happened the killed or injured Americans, This little twerp would be the first to stnad up a protest that he isn't safe in his own country and asking WHY don't have effective Boarder protections. At many boarder crossings there are people from the cartels that watch our agents. They are trying to see who is dooing their jobs and who might be open to a bribe. And they are armed. You think protecting this country is easy? It's not. It's dangerous. Especially at our boarders. Instead of trying to cause trouble why don't these little spoiled children try looking at what these guys have to go through everyday. Oh but that would require at least a little courage on their part.
Border Searches .--''That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.'' 87 Authorized by the First Congress, 88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops. 89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis, 90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply. 91
Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant's automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent. 93 On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are ''aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion'' that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is ''modest'' and the law enforcement interests served are significant. 94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. 95
As for this dweebs 4th Admendment rights being violated, they weren't. Border Crossings have a slightly different outlook on that. Depending on where you are and who you are dealing with,(ie. Customs and Border Protection/Border Patrol), your 4th admendment rights are temporarily suspended while at the check point. To clarify further I have included the following.
Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant's automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent. 93 On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are ''aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion'' that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is ''modest'' and the law enforcement interests served are significant. 94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. 95
Good point, and your thought process would be correct if this "dweeb" was at a border crossing. But he wasn't. If you continue to read your own material that you posted you'll see the second paragraph (thanks for sharing) applies to this inland checkpoint. Read that section again, watch the video, and you'll see by your own material that the driver's rights were blatantly violated.
Thanks for the outstanding research!
What we need at the border is more control.
Seems like a guy is looking for trouble. Law enforcement has a difficult job so I try to play nice with them. I say thank you when the traffic cop stops traffic so I can walk across the street. Yes its nothing big he is just doing his job but being in law enforcement is a thankless job. So I say thank you because I'm glad someone wants that job. Its work I would never do.
I'm kind of prejudice about law enforcement. My dad was a cop, both my brothers were cops ... I ended up being a fireman ... but I get stopped by cops on occasion. I can't say it has ever been a bad experience. Having been in the military, I probably say "sir" a lot when I speak to authority figures ... for some reason they seem to respond positively in return. [:)]
94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.
And I do believe that this alledgedly was a fixed check point. And none of your post says anything to defend this morons actions of trying to provoke a confrontation. The officer in his video was actually being quite restrained. He could have just walked away and let the idiot sit there for a while. He could have had him arrested for interferring with a Federal Officer while in the pperformance of his duty. There are several things that COULD have been done to this guy but weren't. And done so legally. Oh. And being a member of the military does not give him any special rights or privliages. In fact, he should have known better than to pull some childish stunt like this. I am sure his Commander had some choice words for him regarding his conduct.
VAPA,, Yeah well IF YOU had read the the case law you would see this,
94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.
And I do believe that this alledgedly was a fixed check point. And none of your post says anything to defend this morons actions of trying to provoke a confrontation. The officer in his video was actually being quite restrained. He could have just walked away and let the idiot sit there for a while. He could have had him arrested for interferring with a Federal Officer while in the pperformance of his duty. There are several things that COULD have been done to this guy but weren't. And done so legally. Oh. And being a member of the military does not give him any special rights or privliages. In fact, he should have known better than to pull some childish stunt like this. I am sure his Commander had some choice words for him regarding his conduct.
You said fourth amendment rights were suspended. You were wrong. I showed you in your own verbiage where that was so.
I've made no claims concerning the legality of stopping vehicles at the checkpoint. It's legal. The courts have upheld it. I don't think anybody is arguing whether or not you have to stop at these checkpoints.
But the fourth amendment applies and, as you have shown us, fourth amendment rights must be respected at that checkpoint.
As far as defending the driver's actions, I don't need to do that. What would I defend him against? Not rolling his window down further than is required to pass documentation and converse at a checkpoint that is limited to determining immigration status? Refusing to exit the vehicle when he's not required to? Oh, I know. The charge is that he exercised his Constitutional rights in accordance with the oath he took to support/defend/bear true faith an allegiance to it. I can defend that, sure. No problem. Here is the defense: he's an American citizen in America.
(Understand, not agree with)
[8D]
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall seeing anything showing that this checkpoint was where this moron said it was. I can only assume it is because if it were at say Nogalas,(sp?), he would have been removed from his vehicle by any means needed. Then detained for as long as they required to get to to the bottom of their investigation.
Seem to remember that Texas always had bigger better stuff.
[:D]
Again VAPA,, This moron got off easy. In the search for Illegals, which again, the officer does not have to have reasonable suspicion, his vehicle could have been taken apart solely based on the drivers refusal to cooporate fully. Meaning, his refusal to exit his vehicle when requested. I have seen evidence of illegal hidden in the vehicle's truck, seats, dashboard. based on past experience, they could have searched that vehicle from one to the other. But in order do that the driver has to exit. So yes. The officers were well within their 4th admendment authority to do that.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall seeing anything showing that this checkpoint was where this moron said it was. I can only assume it is because if it were at say Nogalas,(sp?), he would have been removed from his vehicle by any means needed. Then detained for as long as they required to get to to the bottom of their investigation.
Well 45long, don't let the facts get in your way. The driver's vehicle could not be taken apart for failure to cooperate. The Supreme Court has ruled that not cooperating does not form reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Search (or taking the car apart in your vernacular) requires consent or probable cause and the video easily shows they had neither. It's obvious you're not a fan of the Constitution of the United States or of the laws of this land. It appears you'd be more comfortable in Communist China. Well, I'll seek another forum that Americans frequent and I bid you farewell, comrade.
I guess times have changed over the years, cause I do remember down in the area at least one time that INS (or whatever they were called back then) did take a guy's car apart .. didn't find anything .. and probably it was a tip from the south land that he would be bringing something across.
Raised a bit of havic over that .. DEMANDED to have them put his car back together like it was before the "inspection". I think they had some rule or another that made them just tell him to file a claim after he removed his car parts from the secondary inspection area. Doubt that they do that now with all of the nice techo that they have available .. and the sniffer's.
VAPA will return 45long .... probably a fresh new start, just like the witless protection program. Darn, they need a spell check on this forum.
[8D]